Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Exotic Birds

Jim Devine: If she will make the temporary ban on imports of exotic birds permanent.

Ben Bradshaw: The European Union ban on the import of captive birds has been extended until 31 January 2006. The Government are considering the arguments for and against a permanent ban. That will be discussed with EU and trading partners in the months to come. Subject to certain conditions, restrictions placed on gatherings of pigeons will be lifted today.

Jim Devine: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he is aware of the concern, not only in my constituency but throughout the country, about the damage that bird flu could do, especially following the deaths in China and other parts of Asia. What reassurance can he give the House about the action plan that he is developing to ensure that similar tragedies do not occur here?

Ben Bradshaw: The threat of avian flu is being taken seriously across Government. For DEFRA's part, and as we hold the European presidency, we are taking a lead in Europe. We are constantly updating our contingency plan and we are ever vigilant in surveying the potential spread of avian flu. Just last week, we held a table-top contingency exercise to test our avian flu contingency plan.

Michael Fabricant: I know that the Department is taking the matter seriously, but I must ask whether the Treasury is also doing so. I have pressed the Minister on this issue before, but I must do so again. Why will there be only six sniffer dogs at British ports to detect the illegal importation of birds and other animals? With only six sniffer dogs available, and each animal able to work for only five hours at a time, how can that stop the illegal importation of such birds?

Ben Bradshaw: It is six more sniffer dogs than any other EU member state has, and it is six more than this country had when the hon. Gentleman's party was last in power. We are spending £20 million more than his party spent on border controls of illegal imports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) has just reminded the House, we have also imposed a ban on the import of birds.

James Paice: According to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, last year nearly 700,000 birds were imported into the EU, 19,000 of which came to the UK. However, according to the EU, only 67,000 came into Europe, of which a staggering 66,000 apparently came to the UK. Can the Minister explain the 10-fold discrepancy in the figures? As we now know that avian flu has been brought into the UK through the bird trade, is he worried that if he does not know how many birds are brought in, he cannot know how effective our border controls are and cannot therefore enforce the biosecurity that we all need?

Ben Bradshaw: No, I do not accept that. As the hon. Gentleman points out, the UK is not among the largest importers of wild birds. The southern European countries—Spain, Italy and France—have a much higher level of imports. The hon. Gentleman omitted to say that CITES does not support a permanent ban on the import of wild birds, for conservation reasons.

Colin Breed: The Minister will know that one of the lessons learned from the foot and mouth tragedy was that action plans should be regularly tested and updated. I am interested to learn that a table-top test was held a few weeks ago. When was such a test held previously?

Ben Bradshaw: As the hon. Gentleman should know, we published our latest avian flu contingency plan in July, as part of the Government's generic contingency plan for exotic diseases. Although it was made public at the time, few hon. Members noticed, because avian flu had not yet hit the headlines. The plan is constantly reviewed. Recently, we have increased the level of precaution that we intend to take in the event of an outbreak of avian flu in this country owing to the potential role played by wild birds. The plan is constantly being tested and updated, given the changing risk assessment provided by our veterinary advisers.

David Mundell: Does the Minister accept that many people, such as Mr. Gary Wall in my constituency, carry out legitimate bird import and breeding activities? When a ban is implemented, I hope that the interests of those people will be taken into account, because—as CITES accepts and the Minister has just suggested—they are carrying out important conservation activities.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman should speak to his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), to whom I have just made the point that there are those—including CITES, the organisation responsible for the conservation of rare species—who support the legitimate and regulated trade in wild birds, not just because they fear that otherwise it would be pushed underground but because there are strong conservation arguments for allowing the trade to continue, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says.

Milk Imports

Daniel Kawczynski: If she will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise import duties on foreign milk coming into the UK.

Jim Knight: The UK is part of the single market in which goods are traded across the European Union. The percentage of raw milk imported into the UK amounted to 0.45 per cent. of domestic production in 2004. Import tariffs for agricultural goods entering the UK from outside the EU are EU wide and subject to World Trade Organisation rules.

Daniel Kawczynski: I thank the Minister for that reply, but he knows that milk imports to this country can also come in powder form. I sincerely believe that the Government are not doing enough to help dairy farmers such as my constituent, Mr. Stuart Jones, who face a crisis in the industry. I plead with the Minister on bended knee—I am not normally this emotional—to do more for my Shrewsbury dairy farmers before they go out of business.

Jim Knight: We are working hard for the likes of Mr. Jones and the dairy industry. We accept that these are difficult times, which is why we set up the dairy supply chain forum. That is working hard to add value, which the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was talking about in Westminster Hall last week. Dairy farmers will make money by adding value and improving profitability.

Paddy Tipping: Does the Minister accept that it is no good preaching free trade while not practising it at home? There are problems in the dairy sector, and is not the thing to do to focus on the supply chain and make sure that there is trust between producers, processors and, most importantly, retailers?

Jim Knight: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable in these matters. We need to increase transparency and trust, and Lord Bach is heading up that work through the forum.

Peter Tapsell: Are the Government fully aware of the desperate financial situation facing many milk-producing farmers in this country? The amount of milk imported from the continent will increase enormously if they are forced out of business. What will the Government do to help? The problem is that the retailers, in the form of the big supermarket chains, have forced the price of milk down so far that it is not economically possible for even the most hard-working and efficient farmer to earn a living. Have the Government considered bringing back the milk marketing board—or something of that kind—the abolition of which I strongly opposed at the time?

Jim Knight: As I have said, we are well aware of the problems faced by dairy farmers. I met representatives of the National Farmers Union yesterday, and we discussed at length the problems that they face. Like us, though, they want their businesses to be able to operate effectively; it is for the Government to try to facilitate that, and that is what we are doing.

Roger Williams: My party is certainly not in favour of raising tariffs on imports to stimulate trade with third world countries, but will the Minister speak to the EU Commissioner responsible at the WTO negotiations and ensure that tariffs on food coming into this country are not reduced until other market-distorting subsidies in other countries have been put to bed, giving our farmers a fair chance to produce profitably?

Jim Knight: Yes, we need a balanced package. Our long-term goal is progressively to abolish all trade-distorting agricultural subsidies and all barriers to agricultural trade in the form of tariffs and quotas.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is a very reasonable man. Does he not think it strange that in a country with absolutely the right environment for milk production, where the grassland is the best in the world for milk production, dairy farmers, including those in my constituency, are going out of business because they cannot compete, not least because of the activities of the superstores to which my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) referred? Is it not possible for the Government to do more to assist the dairy farmer, because at the end of the day only productive farming can maintain the countryside?

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman is also a reasonable man, and I thank him for his question. A lot of the symptoms that he described in dairy farmers' operations are why there is a good long-term future for farming, because all the circumstances are right. Many people talk about the problems of supermarkets, which is why my noble Friend Lord Bach and I will next month meet Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the operation of the market, and particularly the role of supermarkets.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Ann Winterton: What recent assessment she has made of the spread of bovine tuberculosis among cattle herds.

Ben Bradshaw: Bovine TB restrictions affected approximately 5.2 per cent. of cattle herds in Great Britain between January and September 2005, compared with approximately 4.7 per cent. for the same period in 2004. Corresponding figures for Cheshire show that 2 per cent. of herds were restricted owing to a TB incident in the first nine months of 2005, compared with nearly 3 per cent. for the same period last year.

Ann Winterton: Notwithstanding the Minister's answer—I think that the figures are shocking in spite of the fact that Cheshire has done slightly better in the past year—will the Department not take the advice of the professionals, namely veterinary surgeons? Is he aware that the immediate past president of the British Veterinary Association said that
	"the infected badger should be removed; what we are debating is how to do so in an effective manner"?
	Is the Minister aware of the letter sent to the Secretary of State by more than 350 distinguished members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons saying that unless immediate action—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Lady that there is more than one supplementary question there for the Minister to handle.

Ben Bradshaw: It might help the hon. Lady if I reassure her that we are well aware of all the representations made by professional veterinary organisations, including the BVA, and we expect to make an announcement on the issue shortly.

David Drew: Will my hon. Friend take some advice from this side of the House? Given that the Government have made it clear that the only answer to bovine TB is science, is not looking for short-term solutions, whether that is blaming the badger as the cause or blaming it as the transmission mechanism, as wrong as arguing that the badger does not have a part to play? If we look for short-term solutions, we will end up in a bigger mess.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is critical that Governments of all political colours do not make decisions that either are short term or could make the situation even worse. We must take that into careful consideration when we make our announcement later this autumn. A difficulty highlighted by the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), who talked about targeting infected badgers, is that there is no way of telling whether a badger has TB until it is dead.

William McCrea: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the farming community is doing its utmost to prevent the spread of TB in the farm animal population. What will the Department do to rid the wildlife population of the disease? We cannot expect members of the farming community continually to test farm animals for TB while their animals are being re-infected, probably from contact with wildlife.

Ben Bradshaw: I accept that many farmers take sensible biosecurity precautions, but there is always room for improvement. Eighty per cent. of TB cases are spread from cattle to cattle, but there is always more that we can do. I expect that some of the announcements that we will make later this autumn will be about what more can be done to prevent the spread of TB between cattle as well as how we may address the wildlife problem.

Patrick Cormack: About a year ago, the Minister promised me that he would look into the possibility of putting badgers on the pill. Has he made any progress?

Ben Bradshaw: Slow progress, I am afraid. Humane sterilisation or contraception that can be administered easily—namely, orally—is still some way off.

Avian Influenza

David Wright: What action she is taking to protect the UK from an outbreak of avian influenza.

Margaret Beckett: We are closely following international developments in the spread of the disease and taking action proportionate to risk. As a temporary measure within Europe, we have banned all wild bird imports into the EU and are also restricting gatherings of birds.

David Wright: What work is being done jointly with the Department of Health to look at how an epidemic may spread if the disease comes to the UK and human-to-human transfer develops? What advice is my right hon. Friend putting out, with colleagues at the Department of Health, to GPs and primary care trusts?

Margaret Beckett: We are indeed in contact with colleagues at the Department of Health, and with regard to the international aspects of the issue, with colleagues at the Department for International Development and so on. We are engaged at all necessary levels. The issue of potential human-to-human spread—which, I stress, to the best of my knowledge has not so far been identified—and advice to GPs are rather more matters for colleagues in the Department of Health, but I assure my hon. Friend that just as we are doing everything that we can to ensure that people who keep birds or are in association with birds are aware of potential risks, so too are our health colleagues dealing with those wider issues.

James Gray: Although I very much welcome the precautions that the Government are properly taking to avoid the importation of avian flu, I am concerned that they seem to be in a muddle about the number of birds imported into the European Union. A moment ago the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), told my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) that more than half the birds coming into Europe go to the southern states and that there was a total of 60,000, yet on 8 November he gave a written parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend stating that TRACES, the EU computer system, recorded that 67,480 birds came in last year, of which 66,500 came to the UK, and that this year the figure is 120,000 for the EU as a whole, of which virtually all came into the UK. The answer that he gave to the parliamentary question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to stop the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps one day we will get a short supplementary. That would be very helpful to me indeed.

Margaret Beckett: Very briefly, it is the case that the EU maintains computerised records, which are based on the logging of consignments as they arrive. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the fact that CITES figures are different. We are not responsible for those figures and I cannot account for that.

David Lepper: In the interests of ongoing protection, will my right hon. Friend give careful consideration to the evidence of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the BioVeterinary Group and others about the health hazards of pet fairs, and be prepared to reconsider proposals in the Animal Welfare Bill for licensing pet fairs?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend correctly identifies the fact that there are such concerns, and I understand that they are widespread. There will be an opportunity to discuss these matters when the Animal Welfare Bill comes before the House. It is evident that various organisations, which perfectly legitimately are and have been campaigning on these issues for quite a long time, are taking the opportunity of the particular circumstances to raise them now.

Nigel Dodds: Given that Northern Ireland, uniquely within the United Kingdom, shares a land frontier with another EU member state, what discussions and representations have been made to the Government of the Irish Republic about preventing the importation of bird flu into Northern Ireland and thereby into the rest of the UK? That is a matter of great concern to people in our part of the world.

Margaret Beckett: Any direct liaison would be a matter for the Northern Ireland Office, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that as members of the EU the Irish Government are bound by exactly the same overall international regime of supervision as we are, and are dealing with the same legislation in the same way.

Oliver Letwin: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Department's own epidemiology report on the events at Pegasus Birds reveals that DEFRA does not know why the four finches that were dead on arrival died, when the incinerated birds died or what they died of, or when the 31 finches that were refrigerated died?

Margaret Beckett: All that the Department can know is information that is available. As far as I am aware, there is no clear indication why the first finches died, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that one reason why people oppose that trade is the high mortality rate. We know that the birds that died first were not carrying avian flu, because they were tested and the results were negative.

Oliver Letwin: On 15 November, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), assured the House:
	"All birds dying in quarantine must be tested for the presence of the avian influenza".—[Official Report, 15 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1049W.]
	However, the Department's epidemiology report shows that a total of 50 birds that died in quarantine were not examined. How does the Secretary of State explain the fact that her Department allowed a quarantine centre to fail to test birds that died in quarantine and to keep detailed records of the dates of death, when we have faced a clear threat to our biosecurity for two years?

Margaret Beckett: There may be a slight misunderstanding here. There has never been individual testing of all birds. Indeed, for many years the practice has been to pool samples, because it is convenient and because the interest in the past has always been in whether a whole consignment is infected—if disease is detected, the whole consignment is killed. I know that the House will understand that the Department must tread with particular care in respect of incineration. The appropriate authority, which is the local authority, is conducting an investigation, and we were not in a position to say anything about that investigation without its agreement. It has now agreed that there should be mention of the fact that some of the birds died and were incinerated, because it is important to account for all the birds in the facility. However, I cannot say more to the House about an ongoing investigation.

Food (Transportation)

Tony Lloyd: What assessment she has made of the impact on the environment of the distance that food is transported.

Jim Knight: Research commissioned by DEFRA entitled "The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development" was published by the Department on 14 July this year, copies of which have been placed in the House Libraries.

Tony Lloyd: I thank my hon. Friend for that full reply. The report is very good, but it is also worrying, because, for example, it indicates that some 25 per cent. of movements by heavy goods vehicles involve the transportation of food. To mirror some of the earlier questions about local supply, in this day and age it is arguable that the distance that food is transported is not only bad for the environment but reduces quality and nutritional value. I note that my hon. Friend has said that he will meet Department of Trade and Industry Ministers to see what they can do about the supermarkets, which are responsible and must play a role if food miles are to be seriously decreased. I wonder what he intends to say—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Jim Knight: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the report. He is right to highlight the importance of local food for a number of different reasons, but we should bear in mind the fact that the external costs associated with UK food transport are just over £9 billion a year, of which £5 billion is attributed to the cost of congestion and £2 billion to road accidents, and we must make sure that we debate the matter in that context. We are making efforts across Government to ensure that our transport is more sustainable, and I will certainly take up my hon. Friend's points when I meet DTI Ministers.

Norman Baker: Is the Minister aware that supermarket lorries go the equivalent of the distance to the moon and back twice every day in this country, which makes an enormous contribution to climate change? [Interruption.] I did say the equivalent. What steps is he taking to encourage the supermarkets to re-examine their wholesaling and distribution arrangements to try to minimise food miles? What will the Government do to help, given that Department of Health figures on the school fruit scheme show that 89 per cent. of pears and 50 per cent. of apples are imported?

Jim Knight: Best practice is at the heart of achieving that goal, which we all share. The Government have encouraged the efficient distribution of food and drink, including by the supermarkets, in our sustainable distribution strategy. In addition, we have challenged the industry to reduce the external costs of domestic food transportation by 20 per cent. by 2012.

David Davies: Does the Minister agree that one sure way of cutting food miles would be to cut the myriad petty rules and regulations that have closed local abattoirs around the country? Will he commit to look into that?

Jim Knight: We continue to monitor the situation. Local abattoirs are very important for farming and for sustainable management of the land, so we need to keep them open. I am working closely with the regional development agencies, led by Richard Ellis, the chair of the East of England Development Agency, to see what we can do to support that important service.

Bill Wiggin: I find it hard to accept the platitudes about cutting food miles when records show that the mileage of the Minister's own departmental vehicles has accounted for a 40 per cent. increases in their carbon emissions. In the year to March 2003, DEFRA added 1,153 tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere—

Dennis Skinner: Reading.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that I am reading—at least I can read.
	In the year ending March 2005, DEFRA carbon emissions had risen by 40 per cent. to 1,594 tonnes. How can Ministers preach on food miles when their Department has increased its own mileage to such an extent?

Jim Knight: I wonder whether Opposition Front Benchers offset their mileage in the way that DEFRA does. We offset all our emissions, and those offsets purchase credits from the clean development mechanism project. The offset from the G8 presidency has been not only good for the environment but fantastic for the communities of South Africa, where that money is being spent.

Sea Defences

John Whittingdale: What representations she has received about the state of sea defences on the east coast.

Jim Knight: We have received representations from the hon. Gentleman and others about the policy for future maintenance and improvement of those sea defences. Long-term sustainability and the issue of whether it is economically worth while are key considerations when investing taxpayers' money in such works. Over the past 20 years, £140 million has been spent on the maintenance and improvement of sea walls in Essex alone.

John Whittingdale: Does the Minister accept that the Government's decision to stop maintaining parts of the sea wall must mean that sooner or later large areas of agricultural land will be lost to the sea? Will he guarantee that before any such decision is taken there will be full disclosure of the cost-benefit analysis that led to it?

Jim Knight: Only last month the hon. Gentleman had meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, when much of this was discussed. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) was also present. We have looked into the matter and will ensure that the Environment Agency publishes information as it becomes available so that people can be properly consulted.

Bob Blizzard: May I tell my hon. Friend that residents of the coastal village of Corton in my constituency are very pleased with the £3 million that his Department made available for a scheme that gives them much greater peace of mind?
	Around the harbour of Lowestoft, there is a great deal of derelict old industrial land that needs to be regenerated but it is within the flood zone designated by the Environment Agency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the agency needs to work with the regenerators and not place unreasonable obstacles in the path of regeneration and of new businesses that want to move in?

Jim Knight: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and pleased that the Corton scheme has been so successful. Although I would be cautious about flood defence money being used for regeneration, it is important that the regulators work with those in my hon. Friend's community, and I encourage the Environment Agency to do likewise.

Tobias Ellwood: Coastal erosion problems are not limited to the east coast. Last weekend, I had the pleasure of visiting Hengisbury Head with the Environment Agency in Bournemouth. Apart from establishing that it is not a very safe place to park one's car, I saw that the sea level and erosion problems are so serious that there could be a breach into Christchurch bay. I understand from the Environment Agency that the shoreline management plan—the form that is needed for Bournemouth to request assistance from the Government—is not available because it is being updated. Will the Minister expedite the production of that form? It would be a shame to see an area of outstanding natural beauty ruined because of red tape.

Jim Knight: I shall look into the speedy production of that shoreline management plan. It will be the responsibility of the lead body—I am not sighted about whether that is the local council or another body, but I shall pursue the matter for the hon. Gentleman.

Ashok Kumar: The borough of Redcar and Cleveland has received much support from the Department, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment visited the constituency. May I press my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary further on the problem of sea defences? Has he received any representations from the borough of Redcar and Cleveland for the people of Skinningrove? If not, is he willing to meet members of the authority and ascertain what support he can give us?

Jim Knight: I am pleased that the schemes in Redcar and Cleveland are having some effect. My hon. Friend the Minister is responsible for the matter, so I do not know whether we have received representations from Redcar, but I would be happy to receive them and to work with my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland (Dr. Kumar) to ascertain what we can do about the problem.

Mark Francois: May I press the Minister on follow-up action from the meeting to which he kindly referred? There is a specific problem for farmers who want to maintain their sea walls but are caught by the habitats directive, which means that they have to undertake an environmental impact assessment for maintenance that they have traditionally done for years. We were told at the meeting that Ministers would devise a set of guidelines giving a de minimis level at which farmers could ordinarily undertake maintenance without being caught by the directive. We are still waiting for those guidelines. Will the Under-Secretary request that they are produced as soon as possible?

Jim Knight: I shall chase that up for the hon. Gentleman. He should ensure that farmers are aware that, under the new environmental stewardship schemes, they could access funding for inter-tidal habitat creation. I hope that that will be of some help to them.

Iain Wright: On my part of the east coast, we have a nuclear power station, the highest concentration of manufacturing and chemical industry in western Europe and a world-class nature reserve. Rising sea levels and flooding will have catastrophic effects on those areas for a variety of reasons. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that the risks of flooding and rising sea levels are mitigated in my area?

Jim Knight: I look forward one day to enjoying the delights of the coast of Hartlepool and perhaps I can consider some of the issues that my hon. Friend raises. The decision on whether sea defences are undertaken is made on the basis of a fairly tight cost-benefit analysis. Without knowing the details of my hon. Friend's constituency, I cannot give him a prognosis.

Flooding

Jeremy Browne: What measures are being taken to prevent flooding in Somerset.

Jim Knight: The Environment Agency will invest more than £14 million in Somerset in the current financial year on flood risk management, for example, on the Rivers Parrett and Tone and at Oath and Greylake sluices.

Jeremy Browne: Great progress has been made in tackling the risk of flooding in Somerset and the Government deserve a share of the credit for that. [Hon. Members: "What?"] They do. However, Curry Moor in my constituency bears a disproportionate amount of flood water when there has been high rainfall. Will the Under-Secretary investigate that and ascertain whether the flood water in the flood plains of the two rivers to which he referred—the Parrett and the Tone—could be better distributed in future to relieve the burden on Curry Moor?

Jim Knight: I am happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman but I understand that the increased water storage at Curry Moor in recent years is due to rainfall patterns, not flood defence works. Clearly, if a reasonable plan fulfilled a cost-benefit analysis, we would consider it. However, it is important to understand the reason for a problem before undertaking such a plan.

Brian Binley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unless the flood plains of Somerset extend as far as Northampton, I cannot call the hon. Gentleman.

Waste Disposal (Essex)

Bob Russell: When officials from her Department last discussed with Essex county council its waste disposal strategy and the establishment of incinerators.

Ben Bradshaw: Officials last met officers from Essex county council on 31 October 2005 to discuss their long-term waste policy. I understand that the council has ruled out mass burn incineration, but will look to several technologies that lead to further recycling and composting as part of their future waste management.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. In view of the mixed messages from Essex about whether incinerators will be built, has he had that assurance from Essex county council in writing?

Ben Bradshaw: I am not responsible for mixed messages from Essex county council or from any other local authority in Essex, including the hon. Gentleman's, or from Members of Parliament. Certainly, I have been given that assurance verbally by my officials, who spoke to representatives of Essex county council as recently as last night.

Transport (Environmental Impact)

Tom Brake: What recent discussions she has had with the Department for Transport on the environmental impacts of transport.

Margaret Beckett: My departmental colleagues and I have regular discussions with the ministerial team in the Department for Transport on many matters, including the environmental impacts of transport.

Tom Brake: The Secretary of State will undoubtedly have discussed with the DFT the Highways Agency's road building programme. Does she have a view on the DFT's projection that traffic on those roads will increase by a quarter, and on the fact that, for half of those schemes, no calculation has been made of the increases in emissions?

Margaret Beckett: We work closely with the Department for Transport on assessing the environmental impact of any proposals. I am slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman's observation that a calculation of emissions is not always made, but that is less easy in some circumstances than in others, depending on the size and scale of the road scheme. Certainly, the Department for Transport takes its responsibilities seriously in this matter, as the House will be aware from the number of decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has announced over recent months that clearly reflect environmental as well as other concerns.

David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the simplest and cheapest form of road charging is fuel duty?

Margaret Beckett: Clearly, that is a statement of fact. Of course, fuel duty is a matter of concern, and my hon. Friend will know that many representations are made in terms of both an increase and a decrease in fuel duty, and that those are matters for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Elfyn Llwyd: Mindful as I am of the right hon. Lady's previous responses, what representations has she made to the Department for Transport about the reintroduction of the freight facilities grant to the railways?

Margaret Beckett: Of late, I have made none.

Fish Stocks

John Randall: If she will make a statement on fish stocks in the North sea.

Ben Bradshaw: Recent advice paints a rather bleak picture of the state of most key commercial stocks in the North sea, particularly cod, but some stocks, notably monkfish and prawns, are doing well.

John Randall: I thank the Minister for his reply. Given the current state of the sand eel fishery, which has led the European Commission to close it for the rest of this year, will the Government support advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to maintain its closure next year?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, we certainly will.

Owen Paterson: In the past couple of years, I have visited the successful, sustainable fisheries of Norway, the Faroes and New England. Indeed, America has seen 20 species come off the over-fished list, because its fish management system works with nature. In Exeter, I gave the Minister our green paper, published in January, that contains a list of suggested measures that have been taken from sustainable fisheries, including a ban on industrial fishing. Our clearly stated policy is to return to national control of our marine environment. The Minister disagrees, but he has jurisdiction up to six miles from the coast. Will he not bring those measures into force up to that six miles?

Ben Bradshaw: No, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been off on his travels again.

Single Farm Payments

Sandra Gidley: What assessment she has made of the impact of the timing of single farm payments on farmers in receipt of those payments.

Jim Knight: The EU regulatory window for payments under the 2005 single payment scheme is 1 December 2005 to 30 June 2006. The Rural Payments Agency remains committed and on target to commence payments well within that window in February 2006. The impact on farmers of payments being made at any particular date will obviously depend very much on their individual circumstances.

Sandra Gidley: Many farmers have expressed disappointment at having applied in May for that payment and having to wait until February for it. I am glad to hear that the agency is still on target, but if the date slips further, will the Minister commit to making an interim payment, such as up to 75 per cent. of the payment, as has happened in Scotland?

Jim Knight: We have been successful in persuading the European Commission that we should be able to make interim payments if we have to, but as we are on target for February, that is not something on which we have dwelt unduly—but it is in our back pocket if we need it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Under the existing IACS—integrated administration and control scheme—arrangements, payments are normally made in December. The Minister has just told us that payments could be made as late as June for some farmers, but given that many small farmers are living on bank overdrafts, that will cause real hardship. Will the Minister commit to making payments on a certain date—say, March—and thereafter pay interest on any outstanding payments after that date?

Jim Knight: No, we are committed to making payments in February. That is what we said back in January this year, so that farmers could make plans accordingly. My noble Friend Lord Bach is meeting the banks to follow up conversations between the Secretary of State and leading figures in the banking world to ensure that farmers experiencing cash-flow difficulties are treated sympathetically by their lenders.

Recycling

David Taylor: If she will make a statement on recycling rates in North-West Leicestershire.

Ben Bradshaw: In 2003–04, North-West Leicestershire district council achieved a household waste recycling and composting rate of 14 per cent. and so narrowly missed its statutory recycling target of 16 per cent. Nevertheless, the council assures me that it is on course to meet its statutory target of 24 per cent. for this financial year, which will be a huge improvement.

David Taylor: I thank the Minister for that reply. Despite limited resources, North-West Leicestershire district council and, indeed, Leicestershire county council have made great progress in recent years. Councillors Frank Straw and Gordon Tacey deserve our thanks for their local leadership, but does the Minister agree that the ubiquity of the recyclable logo on packaging materials is yet to be matched by the availability of markets for such materials? What is being done to bridge the landfill-size void that exists in respect of matching demand to supply?

Ben Bradshaw: Considerable resources have been allocated to do exactly what my hon. Friend is calling for, including, I believe, £1 million last year from DEFRA for his own constituency and £13,000 from the waste and resources action programme to help North-West Leicestershire council get its recycling levels up, which it has done very successfully. My hon. Friend is right that we need to increase the markets, but as he knows, his own authority collects plastics for recycling, which is not done by all authorities. However, partly because of the high international oil price, the market for plastics and recycling is improving all the time.

Flooding

Anne McIntosh: What representations she has received on measures to deal with flooding in North Yorkshire.

Jim Knight: The hon. Member will recall that my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment met her and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 11 July to discuss measures to deal with flooding in North Yorkshire following the floods on the North York moors in June 2005. We have received a number of letters from her and the hon. Member for Ryedale and she will also recall that I replied to an Adjournment debate on 19 June and subsequently visited the affected areas in September.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for that reply. The Minister will be aware that the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment has a flood alleviation scheme in his constituency, the like of which we would very much like to see introduced in Vale of York. I certainly urge that that should happen. Has the Minister had time to discuss the matter with his hon. Friend; may we have such a scheme; and has he had time to consider the residual responsibilities on insurance cover that rest with his Department? Those are some of a number of questions to which I have still not received a reply.

Jim Knight: I can chase up any questions that the hon. Lady wants replies to. I know that she has been   particularly keen to see a flood alleviation scheme for Thirsk. Hambleton district council previously promoted such a scheme, but has now decided not to continue with that, so the responsibility for the watercourse will transfer to the Environment Agency on 1 April next year. It will then incorporate the scheme into its investment planning programme. I know that the hon. Lady is robust in pursuing these matters and I am sure that she will continue to pursue them robustly with the Environment Agency, as well.

Recycling

Philip Hollobone: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the household waste recycling scheme in (a) Kettering borough and (b) Daventry district.

Ben Bradshaw: As a result of Kettering borough council's rather poor performance in the past, my Department recently met its representatives to seek assurances about future progress. Kettering's recent performance is much improved. Daventry has a good recycling record and has been shortlisted for beacon status for its waste and recycling performance.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the Minister for his reply and declare my interest as a member of Kettering borough council. Would he like to use this opportunity to congratulate both Conservative-run administrations on making great improvements in their recycling records, following the very poor recycling rates under previous Labour control?

Ben Bradshaw: It is always good news when local authorities improve their recycling rates, as most have done under this Labour Government. We have trebled recycling since 1997—a record that stands in very good contrast with that of the hon. Gentleman's party when in power.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the efficiency of the answers and replies, we will have to suspend the House.

Charles Walker: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have a question?

Charles Walker: I have a question.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a supplementary to Question 17?

Charles Walker: Is it a supplementary to Question 17?

Mr. Speaker: I am not answering the question—the hon. Gentleman is. We will have to suspend.
	Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Business of the House

Chris Grayling: While I suspect that this morning's events might give rise to a discussion in the Procedure Committee, will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Geoff Hoon: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 21 November—Second Reading of the Equality Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 22 November—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate, apparently entitled "Incoherence of Government Policy on Welfare Reform and Incapacity Benefit", followed by a debate on action on climate change. Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 23 November—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill.
	Thursday 24 November—Consideration in Committee and Third Reading of the European Union (Accessions) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution on the Rights of Savers Bill.
	Friday 25 November—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 28 November—Second Reading of the Childcare Bill.
	Tuesday 29 November—Second Reading of the Health Bill.
	Wednesday 30 November—Remaining stages of the Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill.
	Thursday 1 December—A debate on policing in England and Wales: redrawing the landscape, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 2 December—Private Members' Bills.
	I would also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for December will be:
	Thursday 1 December—A debate on the report from the Scottish Affairs Committee on meeting Scotland's future energy needs.
	Thursday 8 December—A debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism.
	Thursday 15 December—A debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee, "Scientific Publications: Free for all?".
	Finally, it may assist hon. Members if I announce that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will present his pre-Budget report to the House on Monday 5 December.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing the business and—finally—giving us an update on the pre-Budget report.
	As the Leader of the House prepares the rest of the parliamentary timetable up to Christmas, will he make time for the House to debate and question Ministers on how we can tackle some of the absurd regulations and political correctness in our public services, which are making so many people say that Britain has gone completely barmy?
	May we have an update from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the impact on council tax and local authority resourcing of the new regulations that require every piece of electrical work done in homes to be inspected by a local authority inspector? Will the Government tell us whether any authority has actually managed to conform to those rules?
	May we have a statement from a Home Office Minister about the guidance given to police forces on witness statements? Is the Leader of the House aware that a woman in Manchester who was injured in a hit-and-run accident was told off for describing the driver as "fat"? Apparently, the Greater Manchester police force follows an appropriate language guide. Is it not better to record the words of witnesses, and not to try to make them conform to official guidelines?
	Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Data Protection Act 1998, following a case that came to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps)? His constituent's car was vandalised by someone who was caught and cautioned by the police. However, because of the Act, the police would not reveal the name of the culprit, so my hon. Friend's constituent could not sue for damages and had to pay the bill himself.
	May we have a statement from a Transport Minister on the absurdly rigid rules that apply to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency? One of my constituents told me that the previous owners of her house had moved to Spain and were using their driving licences with the old address to obtain loans and other money fraudulently. However, the DVLA says that it cannot change the official records unless the fraudsters themselves notify it of a change of address.
	As the Leader of the House prepares the business for up to Christmas, will he take the time to make an unequivocal statement to the House on the importance of Christmas? Will he make it absolutely clear that local authorities that rename Christmas lights as "winter lights" and public sector bodies that downplay, or even cancel, Christmas to avoid upsetting minorities are more likely to damage community relations than help them? Is not the fact that that situation seems to get worse every year another example of Britain going barmy under this Government?

Geoff Hoon: I can only congratulate the hon. Gentleman, or his researchers, on the assiduous trawling that he appears to have done across our tabloid newspapers and, no doubt, their diary columns. None of the illustrations that he gave denotes any particular underlying problem. There may be stories about those cases and they all cause a good deal of amusement at this time of the year. No doubt as we approach Christmas, which I am happy to say I strongly support, I shall be engaging in the delicate discussion of whether I put Geoff, Geoffrey or "From the Minister" on my Christmas cards. Such decisions always face Ministers at this time of the year and are of course the toughest ones.
	Each of the hon. Gentleman's examples were illustrations of the problems that can obviously arise as human beings try to deal with the complexities of modern society, but I assure him, in the light of his observation about witness statements, that I shall always describe him as follically challenged.

Keith Vaz: May I say to Leader of the House that in view of what he said I shall check carefully how he has signed his name when I receive my Christmas card from him this year?
	May we have an urgent debate on the operation of the Insolvency Service, particularly in relation to the liquidation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? As my right hon. Friend knows, the litigation has ended but the liquidation continues. The creditors have been waiting 14 years for the closure of the liquidation process. The only organisations and individuals to benefit have been the lawyers and the accountants and it is high time, after 14 years and 10 Trade and Industry Secretaries, that we brought an end to the liquidation. May we have a debate on that important matter?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has pursued the matter assiduously, in the interests not only of his constituents but of a large number of people throughout the country who are terribly affected by that banking operation. He is right that they should not have to wait so long. I assure him that within the limits of our responsibilities we shall pursue the matter properly.

David Heath: May we have a debate entitled "The Government understanding of urgency", with the subtitle, "How many Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions does it take to change a CSA?" Following the rather meandering reply that the Prime Minister gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) yesterday, is not it clear that something that urgently needed reform in 1998 has in fact not been reformed and is still hugely underperforming, and that it is time that we had a replacement for the Child Support Agency to stop our constituents being affected adversely?
	Notwithstanding the fact that the Identity Cards Bill is in another place, may we have a debate on the likely efficacy of identity cards in the light of the comments of Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, who said yesterday:
	"I don't think that anybody in the intelligence services, particularly in my former service, would be pressing for ID cards."
	She went on to say that the cards would be "absolutely useless". Knowing how important it is to listen to experts, may we have a debate on that matter?
	May we have a debate on employment policy in the light of the Pensions Commission's likely response—namely, to suggest an increase in the pension age? Is not it important that we do something to combat age discrimination in employment, to ensure that people have the opportunity to work in their late middle age to contribute to the economy?
	Lastly, may we have a debate on what on earth is going on in the Cabinet Office? Not only do we not have a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster after well over a week, we now have the letter from Sir Gus O'Donnell to Mr. Samson, at the publisher Weidenfeld and Nicholson, relating to Sir Christopher Meyer's book—which made for interesting reading, but was not entirely appropriate as a book. However, Sir Gus O'Donnell said that the Government had no comments to make about the proposed book. Is not that extraordinary?

Geoff Hoon: No one is suggesting that there is no room for improvement in the Child Support Agency, but I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that the CSA is dealing with about 1.4 million separate cases. About 511,000 cases are on a new system; 652,000 cases are on an older computer system; and 286,000 cases have been moved from the old system to the new system. That demonstrates that there has been significant change. Indeed, the Government's reform arrangements mean that whereas under the old scheme only about 50 per cent. of non-resident parents had a nil assessment, under the new scheme just under 90 per cent. pay at least £5 a week. The new, more streamlined system has meant that more parents are contributing. However, I am not suggesting to the House for a moment—neither was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday—that there are no further issues of reform, improvement and streamlining the system that do not need addressing. That is why there is a review, and it is why that review must improve still further the arrangements for child support.
	As for ID cards—[Interruption.] I am perfectly willing to answer only one of the questions, but the hon. Gentleman asked a number, as ever, and referred to Dame Stella Rimington's observations, in a personal capacity, about identity cards. Perhaps I could encourage hon. Members to read all the comments. I realise that, first thing in the morning, there is always a temptation simply to look at the headline or perhaps the first paragraph of the story, but Dame Stella's comments are rather more balanced than he suggested. She said that she felt that ID cards would have a purpose, provided that the technology was effective and that they could not be forged. That is clearly part of the Government's ambition and something that we have set out to the House on a number of occasions. If the hon. Gentleman wants to debate that again, I am sure that he can do so when the Identity Cards Bill returns to the House.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of pensions in the light of the forthcoming Turner report. I will not comment on leaked documents at this stage. I understand that the final report will be published on 30 November, and there is an issue that the country must address, not least because people are living longer. That is obviously something to be celebrated—something for which, I anticipate, the Government will claim credit—but we have a situation today where four people are in work for every person who has retired. That compares with 10 people for every one in work 50 years ago, and it compares with the prospect of only two people being in work in the future for every person who is retired. That inevitably means that we must have a review of pension arrangements to ensure that people can lead a decent, comfortable life in retirement. There are challenges—they are challenges for all hon. Members—and I hope that Members will approach them in that proper and sophisticated way.

Wayne David: In my parliamentary constituency some £47 million has been paid in compensation to former miners and their families. They have received money in compensation for respiratory diseases and vibration white finger. I suspect that the position is equally good in other former coal mining areas. May we have a debate at the earliest opportunity on what is essentially a success story?

Geoff Hoon: Certainly, that scheme has been a remarkable success in providing, at long last, for many people adversely affected by working in the mines, including many of my constituents. A total of £1.6 billion has been paid in compensation for respiratory diseases, and £1.2 billion for vibration white finger—something that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House was extremely good at doing when he had responsibility for such issues. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer always thoroughly approved of the extremely efficient and effective way in which the compensation was awarded, and it is something of which the Government can rightly be proud. It has dealt with a problem that had existed for a long time in the mining and former mining communities, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue.

Tim Boswell: The Government ran into a number of difficulties in their legislative programme last week. Subsequently, Whitehall was briefing that each Bill was being scrutinised to see whether its effects could be carried either by statutory instrument, administrative action or other devices, so may we have an early debate on the Government's legislative avoidance programme?

Geoff Hoon: The House will have been able to study the detail of the Queen's Speech, and it is one of my responsibilities in Cabinet to ensure that that is carried through. Despite the difficulties last week to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I thought that he was celebrating the triumph of parliamentary democracy at the time, and I am sure that he would not wish to describe that as a difficulty, whatever language I might use to describe it. There will be a continued opportunity for all right hon. and hon. Members to debate the Government's proposals, both those contained in the most recent Gracious Speech and those that will be set out in future Sessions.

Ashok Kumar: Later today I will attend the launch of the north-east process industry cluster, together with many other right hon. and hon. Members. It represents about 25 per cent. of the north-east economy, employs 34,000 people directly and 200,000 people indirectly, and 200 companies representing the north-east will be there today. It is a great success story for the chemical and pharmaceutical sector. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the cluster on its success and its launch? May we have an early debate on the Government's successful record in this regard?

Geoff Hoon: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating NEPIC. My hon. Friend has played a significant part in encouraging the development of the cluster arrangements. It is important that we continue to provide opportunities in manufacturing industry. As I know from my hon. Friend's background, the contribution of science and technology to the development of those world-beating industries is vital, and I congratulate him on his efforts.

Andrew MacKay: Why have Ministers been caught so offguard by the problems of the CSA, bearing in mind that they have had eight years to put it right? Why was the Prime Minister so waffly and confused yesterday, and why was the Leader of the House so complacent today? As constituency Members of Parliament, we have an ever greater caseload of people who have been let down by the CSA. When will something be done? When will the latest report into the CSA be published?

Geoff Hoon: I made it clear to the House a few moments ago that no one is suggesting that there cannot be an improvement in the operation of the CSA, but there has been an improvement since 1997 and the system does now work better. It does not work well enough, and that is why it is necessary to continue to improve the arrangements. That is the purpose of the review.

Diana Johnson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that far too many children and young people die on our roads, so will he consider an early debate on early-day motion 913, which has the support of 126 Members from both sides of the House and promotes the pioneering work of Hull city council in setting up 20 mph zones outside schools and play areas, and which has resulted in a 74 per cent. reduction in child casualties in Hull?
	[That this House expresses concern about the number of child pedestrian casualties in the UK; notes that the UK has one of the poorest records for child pedestrian deaths when compared to other European countries; notes that children from the lowest social class are five times more likely to die in road accidents than those from the highest social class; further notes that more than a quarter of child pedestrian casualties occur in the most deprived ten per cent, of wards; recognises the impact lower speed limits can have to reducing child pedestrian casualties; notes that 85 per cent, of pedestrians hit at 40 miles per hour will die, 45 per cent, at 30 miles per hour and only 5 per cent, at 20 miles per hour; highlights the pioneering approach taken by Hull City Council to improving road safety with the introduction of 20 mile per hour zones covering 26 per cent, of Hull City, which has resulted in a 74 per cent, reduction in child pedestrian casualties in these 20 mile per hour zones; supports the call by children's charities NCH and Barnardo's for all other local authorities to follow the example of Hull City Council and increase the number of 20 mile per hour zones in places vulnerable to children, such as outside schools and residential areas, with priority given to the most deprived areas with high casualty rates; further recognises that improving child road safety education in schools is also an essential component of any child road safety strategy; and calls on both central Government and local authorities to make child road safety a main priority.]

Geoff Hoon: I congratulate my hon. Friend on early-day motion 913. The Government, local authorities and road safety organisations are working hard to reduce child pedestrian casualties.

Graham Stuart: Has the right hon. Gentleman read it?

Geoff Hoon: I am reading it at the moment.
	It is important that we continue our efforts to support, not least, the introduction of 20 mph zones where they are particularly likely to protect children and vulnerable groups.

Owen Paterson: My constituent, Councillor Brian Gillow, of Hoarstone near Market Drayton, has for years taken in planings from nearby road repair schemes to mend his drive, which is about a mile long and very bumpy. He is incensed that he will now be charged £546 by the Environment Agency to register his drive as a landfill site. To add insult to injury, he has had a letter from the Environment Agency saying:
	"Your fee will not be returned if we refuse to register the activity."
	There is a huge scheme to mend the A41 just at the end of his drive. Under framework waste directive 75/442, the current regulations will mean that if Councillor Gillow does not stump up the £546, the local traffic will be disrupted and there will be more pollution as cartload after cartload of planings will be taken to a distant landfill site. May we please have a debate on the idiotic way in which these regulations have been imposed?

Geoff Hoon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the passion with which he raises individual constituency cases. I suspect that it reflects a contrast between the areas that Opposition Members represent, with mile-long drives, and the sort of constituency that is represented by Labour Members—[Interruption.] Under a Labour Government, of course, there will be more people with mile-long drives, and that is why I take very seriously—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has asked the Leader of the House a question and must allow him to answer it. Shouting repeatedly, "He's a farmer" does not help.

Geoff Hoon: I must check the relevant publications to find out what your occupation was, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before you assumed your present responsibilities. I was not trying to cause the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) to become even more excited than he already was about the case that he raises, but I will look into it.

David Taylor: As a representative of an east midlands mining constituency, my right hon. Friend will be well aware of the courage and skills of the Mines Rescue Service and its work over the generations. Will he consider making time for a statement on the future of the Mines Rescue Service, whose income is closely linked to the number of deep mines? It has had £2.5 million in grant aid in each of the past two years from the Coal Authority, via the Department of Trade and Industry. It is developing a wide range of services outside deep mining rescue, in escape and rescue, commercial training and research, and needs further support to enable it to continue as a vital part of the safety mechanisms and organisations in this country. This is an important and pressing issue.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to raise the important work of the Mines Rescue Service. I represent a former mining area in the east midlands and I know the valuable work that the service has done in the past and needs to continue to do in the future. I assure my hon. Friend that the matter will be looked at thoroughly.

Iris Robinson: Will the Leader of the House assist hon. Members in next Wednesday's debate by making available the correspondence that the Government have received from the Attorney-General relating to the compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill?

Geoff Hoon: It is important that all hon. Members have access to relevant documents, but I know that the hon. Lady will recognise that private correspondence on such matters is not always made available, and nor should it be.

Julie Morgan: I am pleased to hear that we now have a date for the Second Reading of the Health Bill, which is an important measure. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider allowing Labour Members a free vote on smoking in public places? I am sure that he is aware of the strength of feeling on that issue. Is it not just the sort of issue on which we should have a free vote?

Geoff Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue yet again. I am certainly aware of the strength of feeling. I do not wish to rehearse regularly the detail and content of the Labour party's manifesto, although it was a hugely popular document for which the great majority of people voted—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members wish to change the voting system, that is a matter for them. There is a small minority party that has a vested interest in the matter, but I would have thought that most other Opposition Members were content with the present arrangements.
	On the smoking ban, the arrangements that the Government will put before the House were agreed in the Labour manifesto, on which my hon. Friend and I were elected and pledged to support.

Nigel Evans: Is it possible for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on intensive care bed provision in this country? In east Lancashire, it is proposed to close the intensive care bed delivery in Burnley general hospital and move it to Blackburn. That may be convenient for those who provide the service, but it will cause difficulties for those who receive it, especially people who live in rural areas such as the Ribble valley. Will the Leader of the House state today that the Government do not support the closure of intensive care beds in rural areas?

Geoff Hoon: It important that people in rural areas and elsewhere have access to intensive care facilities and the range of high quality services made available through the NHS, but the rationalisation of arrangements is often not some cost-cutting measure—no one could suggest that, given that by 2008 the Government will have trebled the amount spent on the NHS since 1997—but to ensure the continuation of those high quality services at the highest standards for the people of Clitheroe and the Ribble valley. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I am sure that she will write to him in due course.

Maria Miller: Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on council tax funding? The south-east county councils, including Hampshire, which is my home county, have just launched a save our services campaign to highlight the fact that throughout the south-east people will pay more in council tax this year but get less in services. In Hampshire, there could be cuts of up to £20 million this year alone, which would mean significant cuts in important services for my constituents. Is it not time for an urgent debate on this issue or, to echo my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), is it just another example of barmy Britain?

Geoff Hoon: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady's final observation, not least because a careful and even-handed assessment is made of the way in which local   authority finance is distributed—[Interruption.] Opposition Members scoff, but I have sat through several painful meetings in which we have considered carefully the way in which council tax support is distributed. It is a requirement of that distribution that it is done on an even-handed basis. Part of the differential that inevitably arises results from the fact that council tax support reflects the different social and economic problems faced in different areas. What the hon. Lady is saying is that she lives in a relatively affluent area that is less in need of support than other areas. As a member of a party that is beginning to think about redistribution, I am sure that she would support that.

Richard Younger-Ross: Could the Minister of Communities and Local Government come to the House to make a statement, following his answer to a question that I asked yesterday on the powers given to regional assemblies? He implied that no new powers were being given to the regional assemblies, but the regional development agencies are firmly of the opinion that the new devolved transport budget will be made by regional assemblies. Can the Minister come back to the House and clarify the position? If not, could the Secretary of State for Transport come and tell us who will decide how the transport funds are distributed?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have many opportunities to debate any changes in the arrangements for regional assemblies, should there be any such changes. I am confident that what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Communities and Local Government said yesterday was entirely accurate, but it is important that if significant alterations are made to the powers of regional assemblies, they are debated in this Chamber.

Eric Forth: May we please have a debate entitled "The Loneliness of the Prime Minister"? The Leader of the House will recall—it is faithfully recorded in Hansard—that in Prime Minister's questions yesterday the poor Prime Minister was forced to say, with a desperate look on his face:
	"I am looking around the Chamber, but I am afraid I am not getting a great deal of help."—[Official Report, 16 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 969.]
	Nor was he, because the Cabinet were all facing the other way and Labour Back Benchers were sitting stony-faced, as they do almost every Wednesday these days. Can the Leader of the House confirm that such a debate would allow Labour Members to show how little support they are now giving to the Prime Minister and why that is the case?

Geoff Hoon: I am happy to be able to report to the House and the right hon. Gentleman that I had a meeting with the Prime Minister this morning, together with other members of the Cabinet. That event takes place regularly every Thursday morning, and I am delighted to report that the Prime Minister was not lonely or isolated. He was among friends and we had a lively and informed discussion of the issues facing the country. I only wish that there was such a lively and informed discussion among Opposition Members.

Angela Watkinson: Was the Leader of the House one of the lucky Members who received a copy of the Daily Sport in their post this morning? My copy is dated 10 November and I understand that it is typical. It contains a large number of advertisements for hard-core pornography and sexual paraphernalia. May we have an urgent debate on the obscenity laws and the press regulatory code that allows such material to be sold on the bottom shelf alongside serious newspapers, where children can easily access it?

Geoff Hoon: I agree that this is an important issue and that clarification of the rules is required because they affect certain kinds of publication but not newspapers. I agree that we need to look at that.

Bill Wiggin: Has the Leader of the House read early-day motion 814?
	[That this House congratulates Tenbury English Mistletoe Enterprise on the foundation of a national mistletoe day on 1st December each year; and wishes the enterprise well in continuing their integral role in maintaining the position of the area as the centre of the mistletoe trade.]
	We are not allowed to debate the security measures of the House, so will the Leader of the House use his good offices to investigate the width of the road outside the Palace, particularly for motorcyclists, as I have nearly been done for on three occasions? I hope that the security measures that have caused the road to be so narrow are meant to save us rather than finish us off.

Geoff Hoon: I am not going to go into detail about the precise security measures, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that such changes are made, above all else, in the interests of the security of Members, people who use the Palace of Westminster and individuals who work here. They are made only after considerable thought, but I will look at any practical problems that he raises with me.

James Gray: At 6.6 am, BBC Online reported that the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence would come to the House this afternoon and report that the new joint combat aircraft would be kept at RAF Lossiemouth, that the Nimrods would stay at Kinloss and that the new Typhoon would go to Leuchars. Presumably that is an accurate report, so will the Leader of the House pressure his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that such disgraceful leaks to the media do not occur before a statement? [Interruption.] If it is not a leak, as the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence says from a sedentary position, what is the point of our sitting here to listen to his statement when we can read about it on BBC Online at 6.6 am?

Geoff Hoon: I have no idea how BBC Online came by that information. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence is in the Chamber. As soon as I have an opportunity to relinquish my place to him, the hon. Gentleman can ask him all the questions that he likes.

Desmond Swayne: The Leader of the House congratulated my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence must not make sedentary interventions. In a moment, he will have the opportunity to explain things to the House, so he must bide his time.

Desmond Swayne: The Leader of the House congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on his trawl. I assure him that no such trawl is necessary. He need only look at the Equality Bill that he announced for debate on Monday, because part 2 deals with religion and provides a field day for every mischief maker and pettifogging politically correct individual to interfere in what should be the most private and intimate aspects of our lives. I hope that he will join us for the debate on Monday.

Geoff Hoon: I will be able to resist that temptation, but I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman looks so critically at matters that are rightly private and should be respected as such. That is precisely why the Equality Bill has been introduced. It will ensure that people's views and religious affiliations are protected, which is something that he should applaud, not criticise.

Charles Walker: May we have an urgent debate on accident and emergency provision in south-east Hertfordshire, where we face the serious prospect of accident and emergency services at both Queen Elizabeth II hospital and Chase Farm hospital closing, leaving swathes of my constituency without A and E and acute service coverage? That is causing serious concern, and it could cost lives.

Geoff Hoon: We have had a discussion in recent weeks about the importance of robust cost control and effective financial management in the national health service. I have looked at the figures for NHS deficits in recent years and, last year, there was surplus spending over and above the amount that was allocated. In those circumstances, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to be so alarmist about projections for the future. He should ensure that we debate these issues calmly and sensibly rather than trying to disturb his constituents about prospects that frankly will not occur.

Michael Gove: Will the Leader of the House kindly make time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the grotesque mismanagement of the European Union budget? He will be aware that, for the 11th year running, the auditors have failed to pass the EU budget. Whenever the opportunity arises to debate the matter, the powers that be have tended to throw it into the long grass—specifically, the peaceful pastures of European Standing Committee B. May we have a proper debate in the Chamber with a Treasury Minister and a Foreign Office Minister to ask why 113 recommendations from the European Parliament and the 139 recommendations from the European Court of Auditors have not been implemented by the European Commission? Notwithstanding all the efforts of the former commissioner, Neil Kinnock, whose time at the Commission culminated in the sacking of Marta Andreasen for whistleblowing, why under our EU presidency have we still not managed to ensure that the European Commission can spend British taxpayers' money honestly, fairly and competently?

Geoff Hoon: The House has regular debates on all aspects of European issues and I anticipate that, before the European summit, as is traditional in the House, there will be an opportunity for Members to debate all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I understand that he is a strong supporter of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who is doubtless thinking how he might modernise his Government's—his potential Government's—policy on European matters. It was interesting to listen to such a rant of anti-European invective, as it suggests that the hon. Member for Witney still has a good deal of ground to make up, not least because the Conservative group in the European Parliament has left its natural allies in the Christian Democratic group. I therefore suspect that, under him, the Conservative party would be utterly isolated on those matters.

Graham Stuart: The Leader of the House graciously suggested that he would look into the impact of regulations on this country, and I wonder whether I can nudge him into agreeing to a debate. The World Economic Forum suggests that in a comparison of the impact of Government regulations, we have gone from 13th to 51st; in competitiveness, from 4th to 13th; and in bureaucracy, from 11th to 20th. That has a major economic impact across the country, but I would like such a debate to emphasise the impact on quality of life. In Beverley, the festival of Christmas committee has nearly given up because of the burden of regulation. It was even suggested that portable hand-washing facilities should follow the reindeer in case any child should touch one.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's efforts to entertain us in a not-yet seasonal way, but he raised an important issue that the Government are committed to dealing with. It is a priority for us to find ways of reducing the regulatory burden on business. Before he pokes gentle fun or otherwise at particular regulations, he should make it clear to the House which regulations he believes are unnecessary. Whenever we have this debate in the House, Opposition Members are good at saying how awful the regulatory burden is but poorer at saying which burdens should be lifted.

Peter Robinson: Does the Leader of the House not feel even a tad embarrassed at having to announce today the Second Reading of the terrorist amnesty Bill for next Wednesday? As that is not something the Government feel is right, but which they are doing because it is part of a grungy agreement that they have with the Provisional IRA, will he tell the House the extent to which Ministers will be able to allow any amendments to be made to the Bill without going back to the army council of the IRA?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman raised this precise matter in precisely the same way this time last week. I will not give him precisely the same answer. I simply impress upon him the opportunity that he will have on Second Reading next week to raise those various issues. Given his knowledge and long experience of Northern Ireland, on which I will not challenge him, I hope that he will recognise that the Government are acting for the best possible motives—to continue the peace process and to ensure that there can be a permanent cessation of violence in Northern Ireland. That surely is an ambition that we can all support.

David Mundell: Is the Leader of the House familiar with the concept of the Sewel motion—the mechanism by which the Scottish Parliament remits its legislative competence on devolved issues to the House? Is he aware that the Parliament recently produced a report on that mechanism? Has he read it, and will he give us a statement as to why, in this area, he is happy to rely on an unwritten constitution on a very important issue, whereas in so many other matters, he wants to regulate?

Geoff Hoon: I am familiar with Sewel motions. I hope in due course to visit the Scottish Parliament to discuss how these arrangements work and, in particular, whether they need improving. I accept that that is an unwritten development of our constitutional settlement, but as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, such arrangements have existed since time immemorial in the United Kingdom and are part of the way our constitution continues to develop and evolve. Unless there is a necessity for revising or reviewing the way it operates, I am perfectly content with the way it works at present.

Paul Burstow: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1035, on council tax and the London Olympics?
	[That this House notes the memorandum of understanding drawn up between the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in 2003 setting a clear maximum contribution by Londoners to the cost of hosting the 2012 London Olympics; notes with concern that, since the Games were awarded to London in July 2005, neither the Secretary of State nor the Mayor have been willing to confirm a cap on what London council tax payers will be expected to contribute; and calls on the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State to give Londoners a categorical assurance that no band D London council tax payer will be asked for any more than £20 a year for 12 years as their contribution to the Games.]
	Back in 2003, a memorandum of understanding was signed between the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport setting the maximum contribution that Londoners would make through council tax to the Olympics at £625 million. However, since the Olympics were successfully won for Britain and for London, the Secretary of State has been unwilling to confirm that that maximum contribution is still £625 million and that there will be a cap. May we have an early statement from the Secretary of State so that London MPs and others can secure, on behalf of council tax payers in London, that guarantee of a cap on the amount that Londoners will have to pay?

Geoff Hoon: Looking ahead at the parliamentary schedule, I notice that oral questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on Monday. I am sure she will be delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman's question then.

Grant Shapps: Will the Leader of the House consider a debate about TV licensing? A 54-year-old constituent of mine, Philomena Moran, was taken to court for not having a colour television licence, even though TV Licensing knew that she had only a black and white television. It transpires that the fact that she had an NTL signal coming into her property was deemed to mean that she was receiving a colour signal without a colour television. How is that possible?

Geoff Hoon: At least we seem to be discussing a different kind of licensing from that which we have been discussing in recent weeks. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is responsible for these matters, writes to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

Mark Pritchard: The Leader of the House has clearly had a difficult time this morning, so may I thank him in anticipation for finding time for a debate on the defence sector in Shropshire? He and his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, who is on the Front Bench, will know that many job cuts have been announced over recent months in my constituency—about 1,200 in the defence sector, which is critical to the life and well-being of Shropshire. Will he find time for a debate?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence made a statement earlier on these matters and is in the House today to make a further statement about the importance that we attach to ensuring that defence expenditure is properly targeted on the front line and used most efficiently and effectively to support our armed forces. That means that, from time to time, there is a rationalisation—a change—in the distribution of our support activities across the country, but that is always done with a view to ensuring the maximum support that we can give to our armed forces. I am sure that, in due course, my right hon. Friend will deal with those issues when he addresses the House.

Peter Bone: Last week at business questions, the sad case of Mrs. Anderson was raised. She gave birth at 4.30 am after a long labour, but was thrown out of the hospital at 9 am, less than five hours after the birth. I requested a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the matter. The Leader of the House declined that request, but kindly said that a Health Minister would contact me. During the past week I have received no telephone calls, no e-mails, no letters nor any contact from a Health Minister at all. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that?

Geoff Hoon: The matter needs to be followed up and I will ensure that it is.

Philip Hollobone: Given that of Britain's 78,000 convicted prisoners in jail 10,000 are overseas nationals, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House about how he intends to address the £300 million annual cost of the exercise and whether he will present proposals to return to secured detention in their countries of origin the staggering number of convicted overseas criminals in our country?

Geoff Hoon: It is important that those who can be returned safely and securely to their countries of origin should be returned. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is assiduous in making sure that, where we can do so, the British taxpayer does not bear the burden of overseas nationals in our prison facilities. However, it is equally important that we give effect to the decisions of the courts. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would otherwise have been congratulating the Government on ensuring that we take firm action in relation to those who break our laws.

Michael Penning: On Saturday morning, there will be several thousand of my constituents in the high street of Hemel Hempstead celebrating—or commemorating, perhaps—30 years of trying to save the Hemel Hempstead hospital. I am sad to say that the hospital is facing the biggest crisis ever. It is about to have its intensive care unit, its cardiac unit and a brand-new stroke unit closed, and the accident and emergency acute services will close as well. May we have a debate in the House about where the money is going, because it is not arriving on the front line in Hemel Hempstead?

Geoff Hoon: I can give the hon. Gentleman a very clear answer. In the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority, of which his constituency is part, there are 2,975 more nurses, 659 more doctors and 168 more national health service consultants. That is where the extra resources are going. They are going to the front line, and they are providing and paying for better national health services in his constituency than ever was the case under Conservative Governments.

William McCrea: The farming industry is still a major industry in Northern Ireland and many are the challenges facing it, including the burdens of legislation and regulation emanating from Europe and unfair competition from foreign produce, so will the Leader of the House find time for a major debate on that very important industry?

Geoff Hoon: There is no doubt that the farming industry in Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom makes a vital contribution, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is one of the most protected, supported and assisted industries in not only the UK, but Europe, not least as a result of the European Union common agricultural policy. I pay tribute to farmers and their contribution, but he must recognise that we cannot allow farming in the European Union to stand still, because it requires significant change and reform.

Stephen Hammond: Earlier, the Leader of the House chided my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for his comments about barmy Britain and trawling tabloids. If he read Rabbi Julia Neuberger's book, "The Moral State We're In", he would find a thoughtful exposition of how several of those absurd regulations affect the voluntary sector. On Sunday mornings, for example, I help to coach at Wimbledon hockey club. I understand the need for Criminal Records Bureau checks, but why must I reapply triennially, which is absurd? The Leader of the House has agreed to hold a debate on how regulation is affecting industry. Will he also agree to a debate on how absurd, barmy British regulations are affecting the voluntary sector?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the problem he faces on Sunday mornings, which I recognise as an issue for many people who help and support young people in sport and voluntary service. I accept that it is necessary to re-examine how people who assist young people in sport are required to submit to multiple tests on their background and suitability, and the Government will do that. However, I hope that he accepts that it is not simply a question of saying that that area must be deregulated, because we have seen several disturbing cases in which regulation has failed, with disturbing—even tragic—consequences. It is necessary to strike the right balance, but I sympathise with him on that point.

Defence Airfields Review

Adam Ingram: I should like to inform the House about developments in the defence airfields review. As my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence told the House on 21 July 2004 in his statement on "Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities", a review of defence airfields is under way to ensure the best use of the defence estate.
	The review is taking the form of a series of business cases, two of which have addressed the basing requirements for new aircraft—the joint combat aircraft and the Nimrod MRA4. I am pleased to inform the House today of my basing decisions for those aircraft. The decisions will enable the detailed planning that precedes the introduction of new aircraft and facilitate wider estate rationalisation. We will consult the trade unions on this decision and the implications for civilian staff.
	The JCA is due progressively to replace the Harrier fleet towards the middle of the next decade and the Nimrod MRA4 is expected to replace the Nimrod MR2 from around the end of this decade. The state-of-the-art, multi-role JCA will provide significantly increased performance and improved strike and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as incorporating stealth technology. The Nimrod MRA4 will offer enhanced surveillance support over a greater area in both the land and maritime environments. Final procurement decisions will be taken in due course.
	The JCA basing study has been very thorough, including the widespread consultation of local authorities, and it considered a number of locations in two stages. On 10 March this year, I wrote to hon. Members affected by the outcome of the first stage, notifying them that RNAS Yeovilton, RAF Kinloss and RAF Wittering were discounted from further consideration. The study then concentrated on five locations—RAF Cottesmore in Rutland, RAF Leeming in North Yorkshire, RAF Lossiemouth in Moray, RAF Marham in Norfolk and RAF St. Mawgan in Cornwall. After careful consideration of the options, I have decided that the initial base for the JCA will be RAF Lossiemouth, currently home to the Tornado GR4, as it offers the most operationally satisfactory and cost-effective solution.
	As I said in March, our work made an assumption that two JCA bases would be required. However, since it is too early to say whether a second base will be needed after the Tornado GR4 fleet goes out of service, I have decided that only one base should be selected at this stage. Further work will be undertaken in the event that a second base is required, but we are still a number of years away from making that decision. The study shows that either RAF Cottesmore or RAF Marham would be appropriate for the second base. In any event, both these RAF stations have defined uses into the next decade and beyond, with Harriers at RAF Cottesmore and Tornado GR4s at RAF Marham. RAF Leeming, currently a Tornado F3 base, was ruled out as a possible second base because of the disproportionately high noise impact.
	RAF St. Mawgan was not selected because the business case demonstrated that it was an expensive option. I announced in March that that station would go into care and maintenance from April 2007 following the relocation of the Sea King helicopters currently based there. In the light of my decision on JCA basing, I can now confirm that there is no long-term RAF Strike Command requirement for the airfield. We shall therefore be considering alternative defence uses or possible disposal. The future basing of the remaining units at RAF St. Mawgan will also be considered.
	I wrote to hon. Members in October 2004 to inform them that we were considering whether RAF Kinloss or RAF Waddington would be the most suitable base for the Nimrod MRA4. RAF Kinloss is currently the base for the Nimrod MR2, while RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire is our primary ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—base. I subsequently advised the House in March 2005 that, irrespective of the outcome of the business case, we had decided to base the MRA4 initially at Kinloss as it would not be possible to prepare the necessary infrastructure at Waddington in time for the aircraft's arrival around the end of the decade.
	The business case has now shown that, while there would be some advantages in basing the MRA4 with the other ISTAR assets at Waddington, it would not justify the financial investment, and I have therefore decided that the MRA4 will remain at Kinloss. That decision does not change RAF Waddington's role as the primary ISTAR base. On current planning, I also expect RAF Kinloss to become a base for some Tornado GR4s from around 2013. The arrival of the JCA at RAF Lossiemouth will require at least some of the Tornado aircraft based there to be relocated to RAF Kinloss until the aircraft goes out of service in the mid-2020s.
	Those decisions form part of my Department's continuing efforts to rationalise our estate. Work is continuing and I will keep the House informed of developments. Today's announcement on JCA and MRA4 basing enables us to take work forward to begin to plan for the long-term infrastructure requirements of these key new capabilities. The choice of RAF Lossiemouth for the JCA and of RAF Kinloss for the Nimrod MRA4 confirms the long-term future for some 4,500 Ministry of Defence personnel and also safeguards a significant number of jobs in the Moray area. It is good news for the Moray area and underscores once again the MOD's commitment to Scotland.

Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for giving me advance notice of the statement. I would have thanked the BBC for the even-more-advanced notice that it would have given me had I been up at 6 am to read its online version, but sadly I was still fast asleep and unaware that a statement would be made.
	The central points of the statement are uncontentious. It is obviously sensible that the new Nimrods should primarily be focused on the base where the existing Nimrods have been deployed successfully for so long. It is also obviously sensible that the new JCA should be focused on one of the bases where the Tornados have similarly been based for so long. There are, however, some undercurrents to this statement about which we must be concerned—most importantly the resiling from the earlier, pretty firm commitment that the JCA would have two bases. What does that tell us about future orders for the JCA? Does it suggest that in fact, as with so many other defence projects, when those orders come to fruition they will be found to be quantitatively much smaller than was originally promised and intended?
	What does it tell us also about the thinking that is going on whereby numerous RAF bases appear to be scheduled for contraction? We heard that expression a couple of times in the statement in the context of wider estate rationalisation. I have reason to believe that St. Mawgan will not be the last base to close, by any means. It is clear from the statement that the reason that the choice was made not to put the Nimrods with the ISTAR Nimrods but to keep a separate base was not a strategic but an economic choice.
	My primary question for the Minister is this: what consideration has been given to the nature of the threats that will face us in the short, the medium and the long term? In the short and medium terms, there is the prospect of a terrorist threat. What happens if a terrorist attack is successful on an RAF base in which all the facilities for one particular type of function have been concentrated?
	In the medium to long term, we have to face up to the prospect, incredible though it may seem at the moment, that we might face a major war of a more conventional nature with a more conventional power. What prospect is there of the RAF being able to survive if its bases are vulnerable to attack because each individual role carried out by each separate part of the RAF is focused on a single site that, if put out of action, could mean that the RAF lost that function completely?
	I turn briefly to some specifics. What is the future of the air sea rescue function currently operating out of St. Mawgan? What assessment has been made of the effect on the local economy?
	What are the implications for the future of RAF Leeming? Reading between the lines of the statement, I would be a little concerned if my job depended on its having a long-term future.
	What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office on the security implications of the move towards reducing the number of bases so that more and more eggs are carried in fewer and fewer baskets?
	What assessment has been made, on a strategic basis, of the long-term military threat facing this country?
	Today's announcement has some central sensible elements, but it must be seen in the context of a continued hollowing out of the Royal Air Force, with the closure of Lyneham announced less than two months after the Prime Minister had told my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that it would have an assured future. As a result, heavy-lift equipment is now concentrated solely at a single base. Three Tornado squadrons have been scheduled for the future instead of the five called for by the strategic defence review. It has been announced that the Jaguar is to go out of service two years earlier than would be required if the Typhoon were able smoothly to take over its functions.
	In themselves, the announcements contain sensible elements, but as part of a wider picture they give us great cause for concern.

Adam Ingram: Let me try to deal with all the hon. Gentleman's major points.
	From what appeared on the BBC this morning, I had an idea, in broad terms, that the media had got hold of the information. I was not best pleased, as I do everything to ensure that I come to the House first with such information. I am not accountable for speculation—[Interruption.] Someone says that it was on the media last Friday—I did not know that. The report suggested that Leuchars would feature in the statement, but it does not—that decision was announced some time ago. I can give the House the absolute assurance that I was not responsible.
	I have also had to deal with pressure from Members who are affected by these decisions to meet them to notify them in advance of my statement to the House. I dealt with that by not meeting them, as I have to inform the House first.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said that he was asleep at 6 o'clock this morning. The Opposition should never sleep, but having been in this place for some time I am aware that they have been asleep for the past eight and a half years. Perhaps they are now waking up to certain realities.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the crucial issue of the two bases. I said that that is the preferred option, but we are some considerable time away from choosing an alternative second base. We are delaying not because of numbers but because the decision on any future basing is better taken at the time on the basis of the configuration of bases that are available. I indicated that Cottesmore and Marham had come out on top in that calculation. Nothing is written out, but nothing is written in as a certainty.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about the wider estate rationalisation. We have to take into account a range of issues, not least of which are the risk factors associated with concentrating assets on individual bases. We do not believe that we face the threat that the hon. Gentleman describes. I do not think—I know that he is sensitive to this as well—that we should explore the nature of possible terrorist attacks. It would take an attack of a catastrophic nature completely to disable a facility. That could apply equally to single buildings where many administrative activities are undertaken. We are aware of how to deal with those issues.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned St. Mawgan in relation to the movement of the ISTAR activity. As far as I am aware—I have not seen the press release—the announcement is welcomed by people in the area, because they are seeking to build on the commercial aspect of the Newquay Cornwall airport. It is likely that that could have not easily coexisted with a military base. The announcement has been welcomed, by and large, by the local community—I appreciate that it is not unanimous—because it is better for the growth of the local economy.
	A number of work streams are in place that could have a beneficial outcome for Leeming, but it is not yet at quite a mature enough level. We shall have to wait and see how that plays out. The same applies to Lyneham. Although we have decided to move the aircraft that were at Lyneham to Brize Norton, we have always said that Lyneham could have alternative defence uses. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who represents the area, is very active in pursuing this. I pay him that compliment, although he was pretty condemnatory of me in business questions. Lyneham need not be a solely RAF solution—there could be an Army interest in the site. The same could apply to Leeming. As we rationalise the estate, we do not dispose of it willy-nilly if it may have another defence use. It would be wrong to walk away from valuable real estate in important parts of the country. There has been considerable investment in all that infrastructure, some of which needs significant upgrading none the less. We do not need as many as 50 airfields in terms of what we now seek to do.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East mentioned the possibility of an external threat from a hostile enemy. I shall deal with that in the debate later, but we do not envisage it as part of the immediate threat. We can debate that at another time. All the factors are being considered, but they do not weigh as heavily with the Ministry of Defence as they do with the hon. Gentleman.

Alison Seabeck: I shall be brief because I know that several hon. Members will speak specifically about the impact of the decisions on Cornwall, and we shall probe the Minister about the basis for his decision not to deploy the JCA at RAF St. Mawgan.
	However, in the best interests of Cornwall and Plymouth—the economic interrelationship between Plymouth and Newquay airports is incredibly close—will my right hon. Friend ensure that all the parties involved, including the local authorities, trade unions, Ministry of Defence and the airlines, work together so that the transfer from the MOD to civilian management is smooth? We now need certainty.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend's last point, which was about certainty, is valid. I came to the House to make the statement because I recognise the importance of JCA basing. When we undertook the study, we understood that we needed to be clear about what we were doing because it was proving difficult for the commercial interests on the airfield to envisage the future and, therefore, growth in the tourist trade, business and so on. I am working closely with the Department for Transport on that. Indeed, I spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), yesterday about this matter. Several issues must be tackled, but we shall deal with them sympathetically and constructively.
	I stress that the Ministry of Defence cannot bear the cost of matters for which we have no responsibility. They must be met from other sources. We are on the case, we understand its importance and we want Newquay Cornwall airport to grow successfully. We shall do all that we can to facilitate that.

Michael Moore: However inelegantly the information may have got into the public domain, I am sure that all hon. Members welcome the fact that the Minister has come here today to make the statement and has brought greater clarity, at least for some. He has made welcome announcements for communities in Moray, but many in Cornwall, notwithstanding his comments about reports from there, will be disappointed.
	Does the uncertainty about the need for a second base for the JCA reflect some continuing doubt about the availability of the aircraft, or simply the fact that the MOD has still to decide how many it may need? Although the Minister said that there would be support for Cornwall, what impact assessment has been made of the nature of the decision and its effect on Cornwall? What specific measures will he bring to bear to help the economy in that area?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening comments. Let me deal with the last point first. The MOD is not responsible for taking on all the attendant responsibilities—that is what local authorities and other Departments are for. We try to minimise the adverse impact as best we can. We try to operate a good-neighbour policy whereby we work alongside the local community.
	We understand the impact in number terms. Two lodger units remain at St. Mawgan and they engage many RAF personnel and some United States personnel. We are considering moving the two units elsewhere to give more coherence to what they do. One has a US input into what it wants to do about future use. Although we are involved in the care and maintenance of the airfield, two other announcements are likely to be made later. However, I am advised that conclusions will not be reached until 2010.
	There have been competing pressures on the decision about Cornwall. Some did not want us to remain on the airfield because we could not grow its commercial aspect. Others said that we could co-exist. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to ascertain what was practical, bearing in mind that the aircraft will be noisy. The last thing people who are waiting to go on holiday want to hear is a noisy aircraft taking off or landing. Our best analysis was that it was possible to co-exist but that it would not be perfect. Cornwall county council concluded that it would be better to develop the airfield commercially after we gave them our best assurances on the noise thresholds.
	The noise thresholds are currently understood on the basis of prototype analysis, because we do not have the aircraft. The people who give advice are good technical experts and they say that the noise will be the same or approximately the same as the prototype level. There will be no great variation. If there were, the adverse impact would be even greater. However, there will be no   major variations that would have altered the calculations. We now have clarity, which allows all the relevant agencies to move forward with developing that important part of the country. A developing commercial airfield there is desirable.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that the announcement is good news for Moray and for Scotland.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister confirm that the decision that Nimrod MRA4 should remain at RAF Kinloss will not prejudice the existing deployment of aircraft or personnel at RAF Waddington, which is in my constituency, or in any way diminish operations from that base?

Adam Ingram: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have heard me say that Waddington remains the hub for ISTAR. The preferred option was to co-locate all the aircraft on one airfield. However, the cost implications were so great that it was simply not advisable. Had I done that, at a considerable cost to defence, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would criticise me for mis-spending money that could be better spent elsewhere.
	I have no information that people will be moved from Waddington because of the replacement of MR2 with MRA4. There will be fewer MRA4s in the fleet. As the JCAs come to Lossiemouth, the GR4s will move to Kinloss to take up the free space. I do not anticipate—there has been no indication of it whatever—that Waddington will be adversely affected.

James Arbuthnot: Where will the repairs to the aircraft take place?

Adam Ingram: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would know that. I appreciate that he is considering support for our current fleet of aircraft as outlined in the Select Committee on Defence. The through-life support for aircraft, whether it takes place on the base or elsewhere, will be part of the final contract arrangements. We are some way from reaching a conclusion, but we are moving increasingly towards industry support for whole-life support. However, we must take account of the crisis manpower requirement because we need the skills in the RAF to do that. There will therefore be a mix that is not dissimilar to our new approach to servicing existing aircraft.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will understand my profound disappointment at the implications of the statement for the future of RAF Leeming. He assured me in the Corridor after his last appearance at Defence questions that we would get a full statement on a defence airfield review "soon". Why is he releasing the information on a case-by-case basis? Why does not he undertake a fundamental, comprehensive, strategic, national review of all 50 airfields and their future?
	In the Vale of York, we have RAF Leeming. I pay tribute to the contribution that the air crew, navigators and everyone on the base made when they were deployed during the Iraq hostilities and subsequently. RAF Linton is one of only two air training schools and we also have the Army helicopter base at Dishforth. Those based at RAF Leeming, or about to be based there, are very concerned about the long-term future. The Minister owes them today some explanation as to why they have been considered for the Typhoon and ruled out for that, and considered for the JCA and now ruled out for that? Where exactly does that leave RAF Leeming and the other bases that have not been considered as part of the strategic national review, which he owes to the House today?

Adam Ingram: I do not think that I owe it to the House today; I owe it to the House to get it right. The hon. Lady, to whom I have spoken more than once in the Corridor—

Eric Forth: Oh!

Adam Ingram: If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is even interested in the subject, I am prepared to speak to him in the Corridor. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), however, is only remembering part of our discussion. The other part concerned why we do not have the all-singing, all-dancing comprehensive response. I tried to explain to her that what we must do is a bit like three-dimensional chess in some ways. We are having to unpick this on a case-by-case basis, because we must release assets, determine what will happen at certain bases, what the impact of that will be elsewhere, and what the downstream impact of that is in terms of other defence use. If we have to wait for all that to take place, the necessary infrastructure and planning work for the JCA and MRA4 would be delayed. That would delay its coming into service, which would not be desirable. That is a complex pattern, and I fully accept that the uncertainty about some airfields and airbases is not good. I meet a large number of our personnel, both at bases and operationally, and I must deal with those issues. Those personnel are mature enough, however, to understand that we must move forward on a progressive and proper analysis of what will happen.
	The hon. Lady asked why RAF Leeming has not been selected as a third base for the Typhoon. That decision is some way down the line. We have made orders for the first two tranches, and while we are committed to the third tranche, that is some way downstream. If that happens, it could have a beneficial impact on RAF Leeming. She also knows that other defence interests are considering the matter, and I shall not go into all the detail, as she said that her hairdresser knows more about it than I do—she said that in the Chamber, I think, not in a Corridor discussion. As we begin to consider all the different future uses, someone gets to know about it, someone talks, and the rumour starts running. We must examine the matter, however, because we cannot come to the best conclusion otherwise. I am sorry that the hares start running—

Eric Forth: And hairdressers.

Adam Ingram: And hairdressers. I should have thought about that one.
	It is a complex picture. I pay tribute to the staff dealing with this—the RAF and civilians—who must work their way through all this. We are trying to do what is right in terms of future basing, to make sure that we can have a long-term future and give that commitment to our personnel, both civilian and RAF, in relation to their location choice, where they buy their house and where they bring up their families.

Angus Robertson: May I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement today? It has also been interesting to read in the media the informed reports about today's announcements since last Friday. Considering the efforts by some in the Ministry of Defence to run down and close bases, today's announcement is a tremendous success for local campaigners and the service community in Moray. They have resolutely made the military and economic case for the retention of both RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss. The decision is a victory for common sense. Can he confirm, however, whether the Ministry of Defence will continue with the nearly 1,000 job losses announced earlier this year, which will cost the Moray economy £20 million a year?

Adam Ingram: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would introduce a sour note. We have discussed the reasons for the change, which is part of a better utilisation of personnel, and ensures that we get maximum benefit from our investment in defence. The aircraft that will be based there will be a very important part of NATO's capability. He represents a party that is opposed to NATO. I should have thought that he would say, "We don't want anything flying in support of NATO in my area." He also represents a party that only too recently called the Union flag the "butcher's apron". I have asked him to repudiate that time and again, and he has not done so.
	I well understand the importance of this matter to the hon. Gentleman's area, and where we have made decisions that have adversely affected other areas, there have also been strong campaigns. This is not, as he said, a victory for common sense, but a victory for what is right for defence. [Interruption.] Well, he is talking about it on the basis that it has been designed to suit the needs of the local community, but it has been designed to suit the needs of defence. He is not a strong supporter of what we do in defence, and perhaps he should reflect on that.

Robert Key: Please will the Minister of State explain what will be the impact on the aircraft testing and evaluation regimes and other functions at the military airfield at Boscombe Down, which employs more than 2,000 of my constituents? Perhaps he would prefer to write to me in some detail.

Adam Ingram: I am not announcing anything about Boscombe Down. There are 50 airfields, and as far as I remember I do not think that I was told anything about Boscombe Down in advance of this briefing. If I can write to him usefully about anything related to it, I shall do so. If he does not get a letter, it is probably because there is nothing that I can tell him.

James Gray: The Minister accused me of being mildly condemnatory during business questions. He is quite wrong—I greatly admire the way in which he has handled these difficult, sensitive announcements, and I think that he does a rather good job of it. I welcome the hint during his statement that the regrettable removal of the Hercules aircraft from RAF Lyneham might none the less be mitigated by some other basing consideration. I shall not press him on his thinking on that, because I am sure that he would not want to say anything at this stage, but can he indicate how long that thinking might take, as people in and around RAF Lyneham in my constituency are extremely concerned about the future?

Adam Ingram: I would like to give the hon. Gentleman a better answer, and I am grateful for his compliments, but a number of options are available, and we must balance what is right for defence. A decision might develop that is right for the RAF, but the Army might come up with a different solution, so we must then consider which will provide the best efficiency gain and the best delivery of what we seek. We are not yet at a mature enough stage to say what is happening. He might find that hairdressers in his constituency are picking up rumours about what is happening. Once we reach a point of relative maturity, I shall inform hon. Members, and if the matter is of sufficient weight, I shall inform the House through an oral statement.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister's announcement in relation to concentrating certain operations on certain airfields applies to my constituents, because the decision on RAF Lyneham, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has referred, will mean a concentration of flying at RAF Brize Norton and consequent knock-on effects at RAF Fairford. All the other announcements today have the same effect in terms of aircraft noise, however. Will the Minister consider two things? First, wherever possible, ought not the maximum amount of training be done on simulators to reduce aircraft noise? Secondly, with all the changes, will he undertake to do the maximum amount of liaison with local democratically elected bodies—district councils, borough councils and parish councils?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman will be only too well aware that a lot of simulation takes place, and as the technology for that advances, the capacity and quality of output also increases. People cannot be trained to fly on simulators alone, however, especially if they are training to fly fast jets. I am not an expert, but I know that the people who need to get those planes into the sky need to be familiar with all their characteristics and to put the physical machine under test as well as themselves as flyers. We try to marry all that up.
	On local interests in relation to environmental issues such as noise pollution, we deal with that. We have a very good relationship with the communities around our airfields. If a community suddenly became very negative about an airfield, however, and no one wanted it, that would also have to be taken into account. Those who make the comments have to be clear about what they want, rather than just nipping away on the sidelines about it. Do they want an airfield there; are they going to be good neighbours? They have been and I pay tribute to them for all the support that they have given us in the past.
	The JCA is a noisy aircraft and will not be without impact on RAF Lossiemouth and the community. A number of houses and farms will have to be moved if the footprint is as we anticipate. There will be some adverse impact that will have to be attended to, but the community of Moray is very keen to get the aircraft and I am grateful that they are.

Daniel Rogerson: I cannot say how important this announcement is for my constituency and, indeed, for the whole of Cornwall. The Minister is aware that I have sought a meeting with him for some time—in fact, since the general election. I was promised a meeting this morning and three representatives of civilian employees at St. Mawgan came to the Ministry of Defence to attend at 9.30 this morning, only to be told that the meeting was not taking place. I thus seek the Minister's assurance that he will work in close consultation with service personnel and especially civilian personnel at St. Mawgan whose jobs are now at stake. About 500 jobs are involved.
	Will the Minister also assure the House that he will work with other Departments, local government and other partners to ensure that, if the station is to close in future, any transfer to civilian use has maximum support from the Ministry of Defence? It must be done sensitively to ensure that the transition creates more jobs and protects the fragile Cornish economy.

Adam Ingram: I apologise for the mix-up about this morning's meeting. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, in any case, I could not have spoken to him about the detail of what was happening in his area in advance of my statement today. It was truly a mix-up for which I apologise, particularly to those who travelled, but it was for good and sensible reasons. If the hon. Gentleman had risen in his place to say that he had had a meeting with me this morning, I can only imagine what would have happened.
	I am too well aware of the impact of the closure. That is why I announced that changes would be likely up to 2010 in respect of the other two lodger units there. It is a significant development for St. Mawgan airfield and the wider area. I give the hon. Gentleman my absolute assurance that, within the limits of what we can do, we will work with all agencies. I hope that he will not ask in future for the MOD to spend money when it is not for defence purposes. We cannot do that. If developments have to take place elsewhere, other Government agencies, local authority interests and perhaps commercial interests will be involved.
	As to the disposal of the airfield, I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands—I would have told him this morning—that we have to look at alternative defence uses. That is our first priority. That is what we have done at RAF Lyneham, RAF Leeming and elsewhere. The indications are that such use is unlikely, but we still have to go through the process. Defence Estates will get ownership and then offer it round to see whether others are interested. It will have to take a quick decision; disposal through the appropriate mechanisms will then have to take place. That is where we will work sensitively with local interests to ensure that it is best handled. We can then make a transition to a commercial airfield, if that is what is to happen, and help the local economy in that part of the country.

Henry Bellingham: The joint combat aircraft is obviously fundamental to our country's defence future. However, both the Minister and his ministerial colleagues have always promoted the JCA on the basis that two airfields would be required. Today's statement is good news for Lossiemouth. Given that I represent west Norfolk and that RAF Marham is a huge employer in the region, I would like the second base to go there. Whether it is indeed located there or at RAF Cottesmore, it is vital that we have a decision on that second base. The Minister said in his statement that we are still a number of years away from taking that decision, but why? Why cannot he tell us much sooner where that second base will be?

Adam Ingram: Because I do not have the information that would allow me to take that decision. There will be a phased introduction of the new aircraft, but we are a considerable number of years away from the first tranche—if that is how it is to be defined—perhaps in 2013–14. Whenever that first tranche is introduced, it will then take time for it to build up to full strength. If I were to take a decision now, in 2005, on something that will happen 15 years away, it would not serve any useful purpose, because so many things could change over that period. We may have more or fewer of those aircraft; there may be a new aircraft type, for example. I cannot look that far ahead.
	What we have done is put down costing indicators for both Marham and Cottesmore, so that we can say to the other two stations under consideration that they are ruled out for whatever reasons are decided. The Ministry could then progressively look forward towards the best and most cost-effective solution.
	As to the idea that at some time in the future, there will be free resources sitting in the Ministry of Defence so that it can spend money at will and not have to take difficult decisions, that is not likely to happen for many millennia ahead. I believe that all future Governments will have to live within big demand processes for new platforms and that aspirations will always outstrip what will be available from central resources. We have to balance all the different aspects and that is what we are doing. We are about to have a debate in which we can discuss that matter in greater detail.

Lembit �pik: In his review, has the Minister considered the relationship between military airfields and general aviation? While military air controllers consistently offer a superlative service to general aviation, is the Minister aware that, on occasion, general aviation pilots are forced to pay a colossal amount for approved landings at defence airfields? I do not expect the Minister to be apprised of the details of that matter now, so would he be willing to discuss it outside the Chamber in order better to understand this simple but serious issue and find any potential solutions to the problem?

Adam Ingram: We have discussions in the Corridors about a whole range of important issues. I am not aware of the actual costing threshold, but if the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should charge commercial interests less, whereby the defence resource goes down, I would not be up for that.

Lembit �pik: indicated dissent.

Adam Ingram: In that case, we should have a discussion elsewhere. If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me with some proposals, perhaps that would be the best way of taking the issue forward.

Brian Jenkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but what is coming acrosshe must now admit itis a degree of confusion. People find that these decisions take them by surprise. Would it not be better if he and his Department took a more personal interest in the guidelines within which they operate? What is a good business case and what weight is given to the community? Then, hon. Members would better know the requirements for those based in our areas. We would not be taken by surprise when the announcements are made.

Adam Ingram: I am usually grateful for my hon. Friend's questions, but I am not so sure that I am on this occasion. I do not think that people should be surprised. That is why I indicated in my statement all the different points where we gave advice on the development of the process. We have written to hon. Members and indicated to them through other means when certain airfields were no longer being considered. I announced to the House the five airfields that were being considered. After a detailed analysis, we have now come to the end of that process.
	As to investment appraisal and the business case, we make as much information available as we can, but there are sometimes commercially sensitive issues involved and I know that my hon. Friend would understand that we should not release such information. We try to make information available to the people who matter mostour own personnel, and, in respect of civilian people, the trade unions. As I said, we are now entering a process of consultation on all these matters and we will take the views of trade unions into account. We try to be as open and transparent as we possibly can, but at the end of the day I have to get a final paper from the Department, make my decision and then announce it. I can think of no better way of doing that than by ensuring that hon. Members are given best advice through oral and written statements and other means. If anyone has a particular interest and if there is a purpose to be served by it, we seek to meet them well in advance of any announcement.

Mark Pritchard: May I thank the Minister for his good grace in apologising to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson) for cancelling his appointment? What reassurance can he give my constituents that he will not cancel his appointment with me at 5.15 pm on 28 November to discuss the job cuts at the Army Base Repair Organisation? While some elements of the defence review are welcome, is this not another case of the MOD's leading on estates and economics, rather than national security and defence?

Adam Ingram: I do not think that I will apologise to the hon. Gentleman for cancelling our original meeting. He was invited to a meeting arranged for 29 November, and he then called my office to ask whether we could meet instead on 28 November, because he did not want to participate in such a meeting with the others attending. Moreover, I was not aware that he had been put in the diary for the 28th, so there is no chance of such a meeting happening, particularly given his heated exchange with my member of staff today. He can participate in the 29 November meeting, for which there is plenty of time for him to plan in his diary. Representatives of the various interests will be there to discuss these matters. So I am making myself available to MPs to deal with what is a major issue, as the hon. Gentleman correctly suggests. I do not accept his description of what we are doing, however. I note in passing that he has apparently called for those engaged at the location in question to come out on strike. If so, he does not have the security of the country at heart.

Mark Pritchard: rose

Points of Order

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last night, the House very sensibly decided to move the business originally scheduled for Friday 24 February to Friday 3 March, because we have decided to have our recess during the week in which the 24th falls. You will be aware that these are days for private Members' Bills, in which some of us take a very great interest. You will therefore imagine my astonishment when I opened today's Order Paper and discovered on page 1278 that the business is still there for 24 February, and that there is nothing for 3 March. I hope that this confusion can be cleared up quickly. Those of us who want to plan ahead and draft our contributions on that day are indeed somewhat confused, so I hope that you can put this matter to rest and make sure that the Order Paper properly reflects the decision of the House.

Mark Pritchard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I deal with one point of order at a time. I commend the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on his careful reading of the Order Paper. He is quite right: the decision taken last night to move private Members' Bills from 24 February to 3 March has not yet been reflected in the future business paper. I assure him and the House that that will be done today.

Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell me whether the Prime Minister has asked to make a statement on his comments yesterday at Prime Minister's Questions, which related to comments that I made in the House on Monday about the Trooper Williams and Colonel Mendonca case? In response to the suggestion that either he or one of his Ministers had something to do with the initiation of particular prosecutions, he said the following:
	Let me make it quite clear that that is completely untrue. The prosecutions are initiated by the Army Prosecuting Authority, not by Ministers.[Official Report, 16 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 965.]
	That appears to contradict entirely what the Attorney-General said in a letter to my noble Friend Lord Astor on 9 July. The Attorney-General said:
	The case was referred to me in March 2004 by the Director, Army Legal Services, on behalf of the Adjutant General, following discussions with the Chief of General Staff and the Commander in Chief (Land) . . . On 6 May 2004 I referred the matter to the CPS.
	Furthermore, that was backed up by the following Attorney-General's written response to my noble Friend Lord Marlesford:
	The case papers were formally referred
	formally referred
	by me to the Crown Prosecution Service . . . on 6 May 2004, with a request that they consider whether a prosecution should be instituted against Trooper Williams for murder or manslaughter.[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 October 2005; Vol. 674, c. 198W.]
	The positions of the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister appear entirely contradictory. If the Prime Minister has not sought to correct that which he said yesterday, might it not be a good idea for him to be asked to come to the House to explain why he and his Attorney-General are saying totally different things about the same subject?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is seeking to

John Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is quite plain from the context of the discussion and debate at the Dispatch Box yesterday that the Prime Minister was referring to Defence Ministers. Secondly, for the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) to suggest inside, and apparently outside, this House that there was some lack of moral courage or an intervention in this process by either Defence Ministers oran even more slanderous smearthe Chief of the General Staff, is in my view absolutely disgusting. It was in that context that the Prime Minister responded yesterday, and all the hon. Gentleman's bluster will not cover his

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

John Reid: Smear against

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State will take his seat when I am on my feet. I am not going to allow a debate to develop on this matter now. What both Members have said is on the record. We have a defence debate later this afternoon in which these matters can be raised, if necessary, and we must now proceed to that.

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had notice from Transport Ministers of their intention to make a statement in the House on the London-wide transport implications of the axing of the popular, fuel-efficient and iconic Routemaster bus, and its being replaced by the gas-guzzling, ugly and unpopular bendy bus?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have had no such request. This is the kind of issue that should probably be raised at business questions.

Mark Pritchard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I might seek your guidance on an issue affecting 628 of my constituents. I arranged a meeting with the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram) on 28 November, which he suggested

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is obviously seeking to prolong a discussion that we have already had today. It is time that we moved on to the next debate.

Defence in the United Kingdom

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Roy.]

Adam Ingram: Recent defence debates have provided an opportunity to discuss the qualities of the armed forces and the vital work that they do around the world. We ask a lot of our armed forces. Day in, day out, they perform a huge range of challenging tasks, many of them dangerous, in countries around the world and in the UK. I will never tire of paying tribute to their dedication, commitment and bravery, and I do so again today. However, we owe it to our armed forces to do more than simply pay tribute to them. We must show the same level of commitment in enabling them to perform their role, and support them as they do so.
	I want to pick up on the earlier point of order by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), on which there was an exchange. He should be very careful in the words that he uses. He described the Chief of the General Staff, who is one of the bravest soldiers of his generation, as lacking moral courage. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was also a serving soldier, and I pay tribute to all that he did, but he should use his brain before he opens his mouth and attacks people of such

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should point out before we start this debate that it is incumbent on everybody in the Chamber to use moderate language in discussing these matters. [Interruption.] Order. The use of such terms only exacerbates the situation and is usually counter-productive. I should like us to proceed in a civilised way.

Andrew Robathan: rose

Adam Ingram: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Robathan: I had a long telephone conversation with General Jackson on Tuesday afternoon and I hope to meet him soon to discuss the matter in greater depth; indeed, I am looking forward to his making that arrangement. He assures me that he does stand up for his soldiers, and I am of course delighted to accept his assurances.

Adam Ingram: I have been intervened on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not know whether you are going to allow me to continue this debate. There is a simple way of proceeding. I do not want to raise the temperature, but we are talking about our armed forces and how we best serve them. The hon. Gentleman could simply say that he was sorry that he made those intemperate remarks, which were inappropriate and a terrible slur on one of the finest soldiers of his generation. The hon. Gentleman may well look forward to the meeting but, if I know General Sir Mike Jackson, he should do so with some trepidation. He can be very robust when it comes to saying what he thinks, but an apology in a public forum such as this would not go amiss. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to apologise now. The hon. Gentleman remains in his seat, so it is clear that he does not want to apologise. His remarks therefore remain on the record. I look forward to seeing the minutes of his meeting with the general, if I am able to do so.
	The role of defence in the UK is to ensure that the armed forces are structured, trained and equipped to meet the challenges that they face today and will face tomorrow. We need to ensure that every penny that we spend is spent wisely, in support of the front line. At the same time, we must provide support to our personnel and their families to enable them to focus on the job at hand.That is no small task. Our annual budget is about 28 billion and we employ more than 270,000 people. Indirectly, we support a further 400,000 jobs in the defence industry. Against that background, I want to take the opportunity provided by today's debate to describe the progress we are making in delivering on our commitment to the armed forces. I also want to talk about the role that the armed forces play within the UK.
	The pace of change across the globe is remorseless, and with change comes new challenges for our armed forces. We must ensure that they are properly structured to meet those challenges, and that is precisely what we are doingno more so than in respect of the Army.In December last year, the then Secretary of State announced that we would rebalance the Army to develop a more deployable, agile and flexible forcea force better able to meet the challenges and threats of the 21st century. This is known as the future army structure. We are now moving ahead to implement those changes, which will make the Army a more balanced, robust and resilient force.
	On 1 August, we announced the start of full security normalisation in Northern Ireland. That will allow the reinvestment of posts back into the Army, to make it better suited to meet the enduring expeditionary operations that have characterised our deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years. As a result of the progress in Northern Ireland, the Army can reinvest more than 2,500 posts into specialist capabilities, including communications, engineering, logistics and intelligence, while making the infantry more robust. Continued progress in Northern Ireland, coupled with the end of the infantry arms plotthe process by which infantry battalions used to re-role, retrain and relocate every few yearsis allowing the Army to reduce the number of infantry battalions by four. Under the existing system, up to 20 per cent. of the Army is unavailable for deployment. With the end of the arms plot, we will have more battalions available at any one time.

Michael Penning: As we discussed in the House the other day, the new arms plot and the reconfiguration of the infantry still leave certain units desperately short of personnel. The 1st Royal Anglian Battalion has fought brilliantly well in Iraq and is returning to the UK, but the 2nd Royal Anglian Battalion has to go to Afghanistan, despite being short. On Monday, you said that the 2nd battalion would have to be augmented with troops from the 1st battalion. Service men and women are very brave, especially the young ones, who will volunteer for anything. Can you assure the House today that you will not be using

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a rather long intervention, and he must use the correct parliamentary language.

Michael Penning: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister assure the House that no one from the 1st battalion will be sent to augment the 2nd battalion's deployment to Afghanistan?

Adam Ingram: I do not think that I said quite that at Defence questions the other day, but we would need to check the record. What I suggested was that there are willing horses in battalions who sometimes put themselves forward. I also said that we must be very careful not to put under too much strain people who choose to make that decision. We are sensitive to the difficulties involved.
	I do not envisage the sort of augmentation suggested by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), but I need to be cautious. Certain individuals or specialists may be required to strengthen the battalion posted to Afghanistan. Such things happen, and that is what makes my remarks about reconfiguration and restructuring so important. The reduction in size of the four battalions has led to the creation of 2,500 more posts. Those posts will be taken up by key enablers, who will deal with the problems that arise at the real pinch points. Over time, that will achieve the improvement that we seek in personnel harmony. The picture is not perfect and there is a lot of strain in some areas, but we are actively addressing the problem.
	Although I do not envisage that what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead suggests will happen, he would say that I had misinformed or misled the House if even one person found himself in the situation that he has described. I am very conscious of that and I am sure that the message has been heard outside the House that it is wrong to move people backwards and forwards too quickly. That is what I said on Monday, and I repeat the point now.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister confirm that about 9 per cent. of the soldiers in the British Army are not British citizens? Clearly, we welcome anyone who wants to serve in the Army, but is that proportion the result of a deliberate policy decision, or is it because too few British citizens apply to join?

Adam Ingram: The reason for the proportion of non-British citizens is probably a mixture of those alternatives. A conscious decision was taken to encourage what are known as Foreign and Commonwealth personnel into the armed forces, and the proportion that the hon. Gentleman quotes is about right. All the people to whom he refers serve with distinction, and I draw his attention to the bravery of Fusilier Beharry from Grenada, who won a VC. Others among that element in the armed forces have served with considerable distinction as well, and they bring much strength and support. Another example might be the Gurkhas, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that their presence in our armed forces is undesirable. I am also sure that he is not suggesting that we should not encourage South Africans, New Zealanders, Australians and others into the British armed forces. However, we are always aware that a balance needs to be struck in these matters. We must maintain the pressure on recruitment, and I shall say more about that later.

David Drew: I mentioned at Defence questions on Monday that I had the opportunity last week to spend time with the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment in Afghanistan. It is doing a splendid job there, under very difficult circumstances. I undertook the visit with some trepidation, as I expected a lot of flak about the further reorganisation of the regiment. In the main, however, the regiment has accepted the proposed merger with the Devon and Dorset Regiment, although there are some misgivings. The one assurance that the regiment seeks has to do with the continuation of the back badge. Will my right hon. Friend say something more about how the situation can be clarified, so that the memory of the Gloucesters can continue, even in the new, merged regiment?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, and he is right. Change is always difficult, but there is an appreciation among our armed forces that what we propose will be for the greater good of the British Army in the longer term. I am always struck that sergeant-majorsand, sometimes, the regimental sergeant-majorsare the most forceful when it comes to putting that view across. One talks to such people with some trepidation, as in one sense they speak on behalf of everyone. I have never met one who has said that what we are doing is wrong. They understand the difficulties that we face. Although they say that they wish that no reform was necessary, they are keen to move forward rather than move backward or stand still. They know that we need to change.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raises the whole question of accoutrements and the golden thread. I must explain that that really is not a matter for Ministers. It is a minefield into which we tread very warily. The Army must decide what is acceptable and deliverable in that regard. The executive committee of the Army Board is looking at these questions, and announcements will be made in due course. It is possible that decisions have been made that have not been passed on to Ministers but, once the information is available, the House will be notified in the appropriate manner. It is right that we notify those who serve about such matters first. We are conscious of the golden thread and the whole question of accoutrements. Difficult decisions will have to be taken, but I take note of my hon. Friend's point.
	I was talking about the end of the arms plot and the fact that 20 per cent. of the Army is unavailable for deployment under the existing system. As we move forward with the restructure, there will be fewer battalions36 instead of 40but we will have greater usability. Capability will no longer be lost due to the need for battalions to move location or re-role. That will also mean that the infantry will be able to offer much greater stability for soldiers and their families, so they will be able to plan their lives and careers with confidence. That is what our soldiers want. Given the benefits to families, that should help with the retention of our highly trained people.
	When making changes to modernise the infantry, it has been important not to throw away their history and heritage. I have explained the background to why we are determined to maintain the golden thread. As well as considering history and heritage as part of our approach on recruitment and retention, we must keep it in mind that in the 21st century our armed forces must be truly representative of the society that they serve. We must review barriers to equality of opportunity whenever that can be done without compromising operational effectiveness. Let me cite several examples of the way in which we are addressing the matter. We are considering what flexibility might be possible to help those serving in the armed forces with child care and other family responsibilities. We carry out a wide range of outreach and recruitment activities that are specifically designed to build links with ethnic minority, gay and lesbian communities. We have recently recruited our first Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh chaplains, and we are continuing to work in partnership with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality.

James Gray: Will the Minister pay particular attention to a detailed matter regarding our Commonwealth soldiers? The time that they spend overseasoften they are deployed overseas for the entire duration of their servicedoes not count towards their application for British citizenship after they have left the Army. Surely it is only right that if they serve the nation in the Army, even if they do that in Germany or the Falklands, the time spent should count towards their applications to become a British citizen.

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman hits on another point that we must address. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), will be able to say more about that in his winding-up speech. We are aware of the issue. We must be sensitive to the fact that if people who are serving are seen to be disadvantaged, we must take account of that. The situation is a bit more complex than that simple explanation of the problem because we must work through the Home Office and deal with layers of regulations. I have not examined the matter in detail, but I know that my hon. Friend has considered it.

David Chaytor: On the question of human resources, will he look again at the way in which the armed forces advise young soldiers who have come to the end of their term in the military to return to civilian life, especially those who wish to apply for positions in the police force? The issue concerns me at the moment because of the experience of one of my constituents. The kind of advice that is given to young soldiers who want to become policemen could be improved.

Adam Ingram: To be realistic, I could say that there are other things that could be improved. We are not perfect. We are becoming more aware of the need to address a range of issuesthe hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) touched on one. The way in which we deal with resettlement is important because if we can get that right, others will be encouraged to join because they will know that they will be well looked after. I do not know the precise circumstances of the situation cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), but if he writes to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who deals with these matters, we can perhaps examine it.
	I have mentioned the way in which our resources are used to target specific groups in our society. The way in which we deal with our young peopleand those of mature yearswho leave the forces is important. We must be a caring employer, and I think that we are. We do exceptionally well, but we can do better, which is what we are trying to do.

Tobias Ellwood: I am trying to put in context what the Minister said about looking after the historical legacy of the regiments. The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment is merging with the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, which is then merging with the Light Infantry, although I now understand that that will merge with my local regiment, the Royal Green Jackets, to be called the rifle regiment. How can the Minister justify a link with the historical legacy when all the historical links are being removed?

Adam Ingram: There will be an announcement on the names in the not-too-distant future. The hon. Gentleman asks me to respond to press speculation. We will make an announcement on the names of the new regiments when we are readysome are already knownand he will have the opportunity to raise his objections at that time. I cannot comment until the formal decision is made, which will happen very soon.

Jeremy Corbyn: rose

Adam Ingram: I want to make some progress.

Jeremy Corbyn: On human resources.

Adam Ingram: No, I want to make some progress. I understand that my hon. Friend wishes to speak in the debate, so if he gets called by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he can make his point then.
	The Navy, Army and RAF continue to make strenuous efforts to recruit and retain the right number of people. The Army's substantial investment in marketing over the past 12 months is bearing fruit, with applications now up to the required level. Indeed, in Scotland, where it is sometime argued that the changes that we are making are having a detrimental effect, the recruitment figures make salutary reading. Numbers for the Black Watch, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the Royal Highland Fusiliers are up compared with the same time last year. That is hardly an indication that the new Royal Regiment of Scotland is proving to be the problem that some claim[Interruption.] That information shows that those who try to run the scare that the Royal Regiment of Scotland will be a deterrent are not proven by the raw facts of the matter.

Michael Moore: For completeness, will the Minister tell us what happened to the figures for the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots?

Adam Ingram: I have given the ones that are doing well[Laughter.] No, we must be realistic about this. The deterrent factor is not uniform. The extent to which numbers are up for the Royal Highland Fusiliers is significant, but the situation is more difficult in other areas. I am conscious of something that the regimental sergeant- major of the King's Own Scottish Borderers said to me not too long ago. I will not go into all the graphic details of it, but he said that the change had to be made, even though he wished that that was not the case. He is a proud member of the King's Own Scottish Borderers, but when he goes back to his village, he finds it almost impossible to encourage young people to join up. He is a prime exemplar of whom people should be proud, so that is not right.
	The highlands is another area in which it is difficult to recruit, and there are a lot of reasons for that. However, I am painting a picture of a situation that is not uniformly adverse. What we are doing is not working against recruitment. Those who say that the situation is a disaster and that we will never recruit again to the Royal Regiment of Scotland must take account of the raw information. I think that the same situation will apply throughout the country as the new regiments begin to bed down.
	We have sufficient members of the reserve forces to meet our current requirements. None the less, major efforts are under way to increase recruitment. It is also important to ensure that we retain the skills and expertise of those already in the reserve forces, which is why we have made a number of improvements to the support packages available. They include improved financial support for reservists and employers, greater access to training courses, intelligent selection for mobilisation, improved redeployment training, improved welfare support and a new reserve forces pensions and compensation scheme. They are just some of the measures that we are implementing to deal with the difficulties of recruitment into the Territorial Army and the reserves.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister confirm that manpower in the Territorial Army is now at its lowest level since the TA was founded in 1907?

Adam Ingram: We need to look at things proportionally. We could have party knockabout[Hon. Members: Why not?] I have been advised that it is not the desired way to proceed. Under the previous Conservative Administration, there were massive cuts[Interruption.] I have just indicated that there are issues we must address and we are trying to do that by putting into place a range of packages. I could ask Opposition Members why those packages were not already in place. If they were so valuable, why were they viewed as secondary? The reality is that we are using the TA and the reserves to a considerable extent. As I said on Monday, one cannot tell the difference in the field: they are thoroughly professional members of Her Majesty's armed forces and we are trying to make sure that we increase their number. Members could help us to recruit even greater numbers by highlighting the qualities that the TA brings to the strength of the British armed forces.

David Davies: As someone who served in the Territorial Army when the last cuts were being made in the 1980s and early 1990s, may I remind the Minister that we had just seen the end of the cold war and there was a genuine belief that we did not require the military capacity that we realise we need now in the face of new threats? Is not it the case that his argument about the last Government cutting back on the Army is not really valid as we now have a serious security situation?

Adam Ingram: I do not know who was giving advice at that time, but there was major mismanagement of the economy, so there were major cuts across public expenditure. At that time, there was a proposal to cut the TA to 10,000 and there was a major campaign to retain the strength at 40,000. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was in opposition, he took part in the campaign to retain a bigger TA against the then wishes of the Conservative Government, so I shall take no lessons from Opposition Members about that.

David Hamilton: I supported the changes taking place in Scotland and am pleased that recruitment is increasing, but one issue is that, as employment is at 2.5 per cent., there is competition for jobs. Councils have the authority to allow members of the armed forces to go into schools, but many do not use it, so will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to talk to the Education Minister in Scotland about the possibility that there could be recruitment in schools as there is for other industries?

Adam Ingram: We will seek to do so. I do not know precisely where the barriers are, but all Members could help by speaking to their local authorities to ensure the best access for recruiting.
	My hon. Friend is right: one of the barriers we face is our successful economy. Young people have many other choices. That is one reason for not doing away with the recruitment of under-18sthe number is about 7,000 a year. If we did away with that recruitment, those young people might enter further or higher education and make other life choices, so recruitment would suffer grievously. That is why I resisted the proposal. My hon. Friend made a good point.

Lembit �pik: Will the Minister give way?

Adam Ingram: No, I want to make some progress.
	I have already touched on our recognition of the importance of family welfare for the morale of our forces. That is why we are investing in modernising accommodation and revolutionising repair and maintenance services. It is why, by the end of the year, the combined upgrade programmes for single living accommodation will have delivered high-quality accommodation for nearly 9,000 people. It is why we are helping our people to take the first step on the housing ladder, by making the long service advance of pay available to people earlier in their careers, and it is why we place so much importance on getting the operational welfare package right.
	From visiting our forces around the world, I know that they are committed to what they do and proud of the difference they make, but they also value time with their friends and families at home. Inevitably, we shall continue to expect our people to be away from home for lengthy periods. Enabling them to keep in touch with families back home is central to their well-being and to the operational welfare package.
	Last year, the Prime Minister announced free postal packets for Christmas for personnel serving overseas. We have decided to make that a permanent part of the operational welfare package. For a month before Christmas, family and friends will be able to send small gifts free of postal charges to service personnel on operations. I am pleased that we can take that additional step to help maintain morale at a special time of year.
	It is not enough to recruit our forces into the right structures. Good training is central to ensuring that they are not only available, but effective. The defence training review programme will modernise, improve and increase the efficiency of our training system, through the provision of rationalised defence-wide training on a reduced training estate. Delivery will be realised through public-private partnership contracts with industry. It will bring significant benefits by providing our people with the best opportunities, training and living environment that we can supply. It will underpin our aspiration to recruit and retain the servicemen and women we need to meet our current and future operational challenges.

Lembit �pik: Will the Minister give way?

Peter Bone: Will the Minister give way?

Adam Ingram: No, I really have been generous. If I can make some progress I shall return to the hon. Gentlemen.
	Modern training methods and technology will be introduced, and training will be concentrated at a reduced number of sites, giving us the flexibility we need to match training delivery to operational needs. Like me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other hon. Friends believe that the DTR programme has reached a key milestone. I am pleased to say that the bidding consortiums, which are all credible and capable, have now lodged their proposals. Bids will be evaluated over the next six months and I expect an announcement about the preferred bidders next summer. The DTR programme is large and complex and transitional arrangements will need to be managed with care, but I am confident that the outcome will deliver the improved training and operational capability that we need.

Lembit �pik: Will the Minister give way?

Adam Ingram: I am usually generous and I have been exceptionally generous this afternoon, but I really do want to make progress.
	As Members know, questions have been raised about the way in which we train and manage our recruits. It is our firm commitment to deliver change in the initial training environment, which more than 17,000 new recruits entered last year. To achieve that, we are focusing effort on improving the provision of support to our recruits and working to ensure that our actions result in sustained change over time. A number of work strands are under way: for example, we are looking at the selection and development of instructors and at the training provided to commanding officers. We have already increased the ratio of trainers to trainees and we are also reviewing how welfare policy is implemented and applied consistently. Those and other initiatives represent major work in progress involving policy, processes and people. We will continue to measure the impact of change over time to ensure that we are effectively achieving that change.
	In seeking to implement good practice, we are maintaining our links with external bodies such as the adult learning inspectorate, which is undertaking follow-up inspections. Visits to 10 training establishments were planned to take place between last September and March next year. More visits are planned for 2006 and 2007, culminating in a report to be published in 2007.

Lembit �pik: The Minister has been generous and I thank him for giving way.
	I and others welcome many of the changes in the training regime with which the Minister has been involved. Does he agree that some of those changes were caused by the ongoing investigations into the deaths at Deepcut barracks? Although I commend his proactive role with the parents, they have still not seen the Deepcut report on the inquiry commissioned by Surrey police and conducted by Devon and Cornwall police. Does he accept that that raises suspicion and upset in the minds of the parents, and is there anything he can do to encourage Surrey police to publish that report, which would be in the public interest?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I have not seen the report either. I note what he says, but it really is a matter for the police and I will see what we can glean about their reasons. The Collinson inquest is coming up next year. That commences

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am conscious that the Minister is treading carefully. He will be aware that parts of the issue that has been raised are still sub judice. So far, I think that everything is in order, but I am sure the Minister is aware of that.

Adam Ingram: I am being very careful about what I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The inquest has not yet commenced and the police report may be material to that. We also have the independent review by Nicholas Blake, QC. He is due to report before Christmas, but perhaps just after Christmas. I am waiting to see what he says and I know that he has had dealings with the Surrey police. I do not know whether anything of relevance can arise from his inquiry, which may be restricted any way because of the forthcoming inquest.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to my first question. Does he accept that the reason I am concerned to see the report published is that I genuinely believe that it is in the public interest for that to happen? It would also be in the Army's interests, because we have already learned lots of lessons. My frustration relates to the fact that, at every stage, Surrey police and, to an extent, the Army have been secretive and unwilling to share the information. I thank the Minister for his response and hope that he will be constructive in helping us to get the information into the public domain.

Adam Ingram: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not over-interpret what I am saying. There are good reasons the information has not been disclosed. I cannot give him the explanation. He should pursue the issue with the responsible Minister and the responsible Department. I do not answer for the civilian police, but I understand why he asks those questions, as well as the hurt about the issues.
	With a slip of the tongue, I inadvertently called Private Beharry, VC, Fusilier Beharry. He is, of course, a private, and I just want to get the record straight.
	Battle-winning troops need battle-winning equipment. Even the longest period of sustained real growth in planned defence spending for more than 20 years does not make equipment provision an easy task. Our aspirations will always outstrip our resources. With shipbuilding alone, we are embarked on a programme that is likely to be worth 14 billion over the next 10 to 15 yearsthe largest programme of work for decades. The ships and submarines that will be built are much more than steel hulls. They will be complex weapons systems full of cutting-edge technology. Some of our ships may be in service for a very long time and will need to be adapted and upgraded over their lives. The future carriers, for example, will deliver expeditionary offensive air power over a projected life of more than 50 years.
	All that requires a change in the nature of our relationship with industry. We need to work more closely with those in the defence industry to ensure that they understand our needs and can tailor their expectations accordingly. That is why my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Drayson, who has responsibility for defence procurement, is developing a defence industrial strategy, which will provide industry with a better understanding of what our future equipment requirements are likely to be. It will set out the key capabilities that must be fostered and sustained in the UK to meet our future requirements. If there are industrial capabilities and technologies that we need to retain in the UK but that are at risk, we must act now to preserve them. However, we cannot sustain all the defence capabilities that currently exist within UK industry.
	By adopting a buy-British policy where an equivalent, cheaper alternative product is available abroad, or a better one for the same price, our armed forces could either get less, or worse, equipment than they deserve. Of course, equipment does not stay on the parade ground being polished. It is used in action. It must be fit for purpose. Our people expect that and they should get nothing less.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend knows that many shipbuilding communities throughout the country are waiting with anticipation for the work to come on streamit will give a lifeline to a lot of those yardsbut can he give a commitment that, where workable alternatives exist in this country, those ships will be built in the UK, rather than the work being farmed out to eastern Europe, thus devastating parts of the UK shipbuilding industry, which is supportive of the Government at the moment?

Adam Ingram: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is asking me specifically about the warship programme. I am conscious of that point. Given the fact that there is only so much that we can put into the yards throughout the UK, we must be very clear about what we want. We must find out whether they can deliver at the right price. We must then ensure that we have a shipbuilding industry for many years ahead. I suggest that our record to date shows how we protect and preserve those keys skills and capabilities. I would want to be judged on what we have done and I do not anticipate a major change in policy in that regard.
	The defence industrial strategy will also recognise that, for defence to remain attractive to industry, there will need to be a focus on assured revenue streams and continued engagement, rather than a series of big must win procurements. The platforms of tomorrow, such as the future carriers and the future rapid effects system, will need to be underpinned by an emphasis on through-life capability. The same is true of the joint combat aircraft, the basing decisions for which I announced in detail earlier.
	It is not just in respect of equipment that we must spend the taxpayer's money to best effect. Every penny that we spend in the head office and supporting agencies is a penny less for the front line. We are committed to achieving 2.8 billion of efficienciesmoney that will be ploughed back into the front line. That is why we are collocating armed forces' headquartersfor example, the collocation of the RAF's Strike Command and Personnel and Training Command at High Wycombe. It is why we have embarked on a programme of transformation in logistics. Again, that is no small task. The Defence Logistics Organisation alone has a budget of some 5.5 billion and employs more than 28,000 people. For that to deliver the efficiencies that we must make, difficult decisions will have to be taken, such as the changes to the Defence Aviation Repair Agency and the Army Base Repair Organisation that I announced last week.
	I will continue to take those difficult decisions with the best interests of defence at heartnot, as some have suggested, with the best interests of the private sector at heart. The success of the in-house future defence supply chain initiative bid should be evidence enough of that. The in-house solution was chosen to manage and operate the defence supply chain because it will provide the best balance between improved logistic support to operations and better value for money for taxpayers. Support to the front line will be significantly improved. We expect to make savings of more than 400 million over the next 10 years on that initiative alone.
	I have said much about the programme of activity that we are embarked on to support our armed forces. I conclude by saying something of the work of our armed forces themselves in the UK.
	The days of defending our shores from military invasion are long gone. We had an exchange during the earlier statement on that. Home security, rather than home defence, is the order of the day, and that is not primarily a matter for the armed forces. Indeed, right hon. and hon. Members will recall that the last defence debate took place on 7 July, in the immediate aftermath of the appalling and tragic attacks in London that day. I pay tribute to the emergency services who responded so professionally. Their performance was a testament to the emergence of modern, highly capable emergency services. Indeed, the fact that it has not been necessary to mobilise a civil contingency reaction force serves to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Government's efforts to ensure that our civil authorities are resilient. None the less, across the UK, defence plays a vital role in our community and, when called upon, in our security.
	The armed forces are not a conventional emergency service, but they are, for example, providing emergency fire cover in the west midlands as a result of strike action by the Fire Brigades Union. Resolving that dispute is a matter for the West Midlands fire service and the FBU, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment. I will say, however, that our armed forces are not permitted the luxury of strike action, yet we ask them to undertake those difficult jobs without comment, and they do it exceptionally well.
	I said that the armed forces are not a conventional emergency service, but they regularly provide support to the police and other civil authorities. Most of those tasks are small-scale, drawing on specialist military skills. Invariably, they are unseen and unheralded, but they are the force that we call upon when all else fails. For example, right hon. and hon. Members will recall seeing a military Chinook helicopter deliver a police support unit to the scene of a disturbance during the G8 summit at Gleneagles. They will also recall the crucial role that the armed forces played in Carlisle during the flooding in January and in Boscastle last year.
	As we know, whether they are operating in Carlisle or Kabul, Boscastle or Basra, our armed forces perform with great distinction. They have a professionalism, commitment and dedication to duty second to noneI know that they have the full support of the Houseand that is why the Government are determined to deliver the best practical support they deserve. They should expect nothing less.

Michael Ancram: I rise to speak today with somewhat mixed feelings. On 6 December, at my own request, I shall return to the Back Benches, and this, therefore, is my last speech from the Dispatch Box, and my last speech as shadow Secretary of State for Defence.
	I was grateful to the Secretary of State for the remarks that he made on Monday, and I reciprocate them. I regard him as a man who has a real affection for our armed forces, and who, so far as he is allowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has their interests at heart. I have always found him an honourable Minister to deal with, in his many roles, and an agreeable companion beyond the boundaries of party politics. We have occasionally sung in harmony togetherand I mean that genuinely, both of us being folk singers from our misspent youth.
	Having thus destroyed any lingering leadership ambitions that the Secretary of State may secretly have nurtured, I turn next to the Minister of State. Never a man to duck a fight, as we have seen again today, honed as I was in the heat of pre-devolution Scottish politics and on the fires of conflict in Northern Ireland, he is an opponent for whom I have always had the utmost respect.
	I welcome this debate on defence in the United Kingdom. Since the end of the cold war, the concept of defence of the realm has changed. From being reactive, in the light of evolving threats it has now had to become proactive. Alongside deterrence, there is now an increased need for pre-emption, or what the United Nations Commission called prevention. That is why, for instance, military action in Afghanistan in 2001 was prosecuted under the self-defence article, article 51, of the United Nations charter. We can no longer regard defence in Britain as being solely restricted within the boundaries of Britain.
	I join the Minister of State in the praise that he has just given to the emergency services and the way they operated after the terrorist outrages of 7 July. But those terrorist outrages and their connection to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism underlined the way in which homeland security and events overseas are now inextricably linked. The balance, therefore, between the maintenance of defence resources within the United Kingdom and their deployment outside the United Kingdom is a crucial and difficult one to strike. The common denominator between them is the need for sufficient manpower and adequate equipment, and that should be a crucial element of today's debate.
	We start the debate with a degree of harmony. We both pay tribute to our armed forces; we both acknowledge our debt to them for the dedicated courage with which they carry out their duties. I am unashamedly proud of our armed forces, whose commitment and professionalism are second to none. But we owe them more than just our words of thanks and praise. We owe them effective support, and I should have thought that that was common between us. Sadly, I cannot think that it is.
	In my last Front-Bench defence speech I intend to be frank. I simply did not recognise our armed forces from the description given today by the right hon. Gentleman. I have never in over 30 years in politics known our armed forces to be under such pressure, to be so unsighted as to the Government's purpose and direction, to feel so unappreciated and devalued, and to be under such constant threat of cuts.
	Since 1997, the armed forces have seen the level of their commitments rise, but not their resources. In simple terms, since 1997 they have been asked by the Government to do more and more with less and less. There have been five major operations in eight yearsBosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraqall prosecuted brilliantly by our forces, but the resources available to them have been diminishing.

Kevan Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about overstretch of the armed forces, but will he tell the House which one of those deployments he would have cut or not taken part in?

Michael Ancram: Since I took on this role for the Opposition, I have made it clear that I believe that it is essential to match commitments to resources and resources to commitments. The complaint that I make now, and the reason the armed forces are under such pressure, is that those resources and commitments are out of kilter. That is why some of the matters that I shall now outline are in fact the case.
	Out of the armed forces helicopter fleet, 25 per cent. is grounded, with many needing lengthy overhauls, largely due to flying in Iraq. Out of the fleet of 569 helicopters, 121 are in repair and 79 have been classified as beyond repair. All of the RAF specialised aircraft in Iraq are grounded due to mechanical faults, more than 50 per cent. of the UK's armoured vehicle fleet is not fit for use, and only 1,483 of the Army's 3,340 combat reconnaissance class vehicles are in working order. The armed forces are now under intolerable pressure.
	We have seen the reality of activity far outstripping the levels predicted in the review on which resources were supposedly based. But we have not seen any matching rise in defence spending . . . as a percentage of GDP, defence spending has fallen away.[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2005; Vol. 668, c. 48485.]
	Those are not my words, but those of our most recently retired Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce.
	It seems extraordinary . . . at a time . . . when Iraq needs reinforcing; when Afghanistan needs additional troops . . . that we are actually reducing the size of the Army and in particular the number of infantrymen, who are the very people we need on current and future operations. [Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2005; Vol. 668, c. 564.]
	Again, those are not my words, but this time those of the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie.

John Reid: I have no intention of trying to cover all the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raisesonly one. While I was with the Army in the field on exercise yesterday, I understand that an allegation was made that reinforcements had been requested for Iraq and refused. That is a wrong and misleading accusation, and, inadvertently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred today to the need for reinforcements, presumably based on that factually incorrect assertion made from his own Benches yesterday. I want to give an assurance that we have not been asked for reinforcements, as was alleged yesterday, nor have I refused them.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's clarification and obviously I accept what he has to say. My statementI was going to refer to it againwas based on an understanding that our commander in Basra is concerned about the influx of Iranian weapons and Iranian insurgents, and has looked for further troop reinforcements to help him to prevent that incursion across the border. If that is not the case, I accept what the Secretary of State has to say.

John Reid: There are two different statements there. We are all concerned about IEDsimprovised explosive devicestheir origins, their numbers and any threat to the troops, but so far as I am aware, there is no truth in the claim that the commander has requested extra troops or reinforcements. Certainly I have not seen any such request, and I have therefore not refused it. That is the only point that I wish to put on the record.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. When I referred to Iraq I was quoting the words of the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, in a debate in the House of Lords. He said not that reinforcements had been asked for, but that they were needed. When we look at what is happening in Iraq, that may well turn out to be the case.
	I notice that the Secretary of State recently issued a press release denying a series of what he described as urban myths, but the points that I have just made are not urban myths; they are the words of former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, and it is incumbent on the House to take them seriously.
	One of the myths attacked by the Secretary of State was the perception that the defence budget was getting smaller. He proclaimed that planned defence expenditure in 200708 will be higher than it was in 199798. I would welcome clarification as to how those figures were arrived at, as the Secretary of State and his colleagues are very keen to point out in written answers that following the introduction of resource accounting in 200102, direct comparisons with previous years are not possible, so how the Secretary of State can now pretend that they are possible is something that I find very difficult to understand.
	The truth is that as a percentage of GDP, defence expenditure will fall from 2.22 per cent. in this financial year to 2.17 per cent. in 200708. The equivalent percentage in France for 2004 was 2.6 per cent. and the United Kingdom percentage in 199798, to which the Secretary of State referred, was 2.66 per cent. On those figures it is clear that, as a proportion of GDP, defence expenditure has fallen.

John Reid: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that under the Conservative Government defence expenditure fell from a high of 5.4 per cent. of GDP to 2.4 per cent.?

Michael Ancram: I have heard this argument on a number of occasions: that because the Conservative Government made cuts when commitments were coming down, this Government can continue to make cuts when commitments are going up. It is rather like saying, Because you cut off a toe, I am entitled to cut off your leg. The situation is different, and the sooner the Secretary of State understands that, the better. The cold war ended; the commitments changed; we made reductions. Now the commitments are increasing again. Even his own report recently made that clear, yet we are seeing the commitment of resources going down.

John Reid: I am willing to engage in this discussion with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who like me has always wanted as many resources as we can get. There are two differences between the two Administrations. First, his Administration cut the budget in absolute terms as well as in proportional terms: there was a 29 per cent. cut in absolute terms; and there was a 50 per cent. cut in proportional terms. In our situation, there has been an increase in absolute terms and one 10th of the cut in proportional terms under the Conservative Government.

Michael Ancram: The Secretary of State always makes these figures sound as if there is an increase. I seem to remember that he was responsible for the strategic defence review, in which certain expenditure and commitment levels were set out. I think that he would agree that the commitment levels have risen beyond those projected in the review and that the resource commitments have gone down from what they were predicted to be in the review. For the first time, we have a Minister who, perhaps unfortunately for him, is having to defend the cuts that he has made in the face of what he said was necessary some time ago.

John Reid: In terms of the absolute amount in real terms, the money allocated has gone up by 1.4 per cent. per annum over the three years. In terms of the planning assumptions, although there is a high and challenging level of commitment, we are broadly within the planning assumptions that we set out in the strategic defence review. I hope that that clarifies both those matters.

Michael Ancram: The Secretary of State and I could go on for a long time with this ping-pong across the Dispatch Box. I shall come in the course of my remarks to the effects of the reductions. We can all bandy figures. I want to show him the effect of that on the armed forces on the ground. If he is patient for a while, I shall come back to that.

David Davies: I have not been in Parliament long, but will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, during the 1980s, Labour Members were calling for a massive cut in our defence commitment, as they wished to get rid of our nuclear deterrent? Will he accept my congratulations on the fact that the previous Government held out against those calls and ensured that we had a commitment until the end of the cold war, when it was possible to make some reductions?

Michael Ancram: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am looking across the Chamber at certain Labour Members, who I think from how they behave now are rather wishing that they had behaved differently in the 1980s.
	The Chancellor has become increasingly effective in clawing back much of the reluctantly granted increase that the Secretary of State is talking about. For example, thanks to the previous Secretary of State's inability to stand up to the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence must now pay for its use of the spectrum at a cost to the armed forces of 145 million up to and including this year. That is a clawback by the Treasury which I am sure, had the current Secretary of State been in post, he would have resisted, but unfortunately his predecessor did not have the strength to do so.
	At least the Minister of State came clean, possibly inadvertently, when he said:
	I have always said that the budget is under pressure: if it were not, we would not be trying to save 2.8 billion.[Official Report, 8 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 173.]
	That does not sound like a Minister who is talking about increased expenditure.
	What is even more regrettable is that, to achieve those Treasury-driven savings, the MOD cuts take place wherever convenient, rather than where it is prudent to do so. I fear that the major project report

Adam Ingram: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I will in a second. Let me finish the point.
	I fear that the major project report 2005 will make further disappointing reading, bearing in mind that the 200405 winter supplementary estimates reduced the budgets of the front-line commands by 1 billion to pay for the delays in the equipment programme. Perhaps the Minister could explain the background to that.

Adam Ingram: I think that I will go back to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier comments. I indicated in an earlier contribution that defence budgets are always under pressure. They always have been and probably always will be, because our aspirations outstrip our resources at all times. Can he tell us, since he is criticising what we are seeking to do through a 2.8 billion efficiency programme, where he would have got the other 1.6 billion efficiency savings that he was campaigning on at the last general election? The Conservatives were seeking to take out 4.4 billion and I am telling him that it is very difficult to take out 2.8 billion.

Michael Ancram: We made it clear that we were going to find savings of 2.7 billion, which we were going to transfer to front-line capability, but this debate is about the armed forces as they are today. I want to make it clear that the Minister of State's description of the armed forces as buoyant does not match the reality. Let us look at the effects of what has happened. Since 1997, the Army has lost 9,000 personnel, the Royal Navy has lost 10,000 and the RAF has lost 16,000. The MOD's own Key Defence Messages state that by April 2008 Army strength will be cut to 101,800, Royal Navy strength to 36,250, and RAF strength to 40,800. The manpower figures are coming down and no amount of rhetoric from the Minister of State can disguise that.

Peter Kilfoyle: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes much of the loss of manpowerpolitically incorrect, I knowin the armed forces, but is not much of that to do with, and I am sure that the Chief of the General Staff would agree, the quality of housing that is available? Was not it the Conservative Government who virtually gave away military housing to the Nomura bank for a knock-down price, a deal that the incoming Government could do nothing about?

Michael Ancram: I know from my own constituency experience, because I have Tidworth in my constituency, that there has been much progress in terms of Army housingI have been asking a lot of questions about that. I have been surprised to find out how many Army houses are empty at the moment. That is something that the MOD should address for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gives.
	If the Minister hoped that the cracks in the armed forces could be papered over by the use of reserves, I suggest that he look again at the position in which the reserve forces find themselves today. They have done a tremendous job, but those serving voluntarily have been steadily leaving, causing a crisis for both the Territorial Army and the regular Army, which it increasingly supports. Can the Minister confirm reports that an average of 500 men and women a month have left the TA since October 2003? The TA's current strength is 35,500, the lowest since it was founded in 1907, whereas the required strength is 41,610. Can he confirm the report that the recent 3 million television advertising campaign, which shows that the Government know that they must have more men and women in the reserves, brought in fewer than 600 candidates?

James Gray: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the situation in the TA may be significantly worse than he describes? Quite a large number of people who are still nominally on the books have remained in the regiments for the purpose of receiving their bounty, which they get at the end of the year, but will be reluctant to be deployed again and may be thinking about leaving.

Michael Ancram: My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a good point. It again highlights the difference between the Minister's rhetoric and the reality on the ground.
	The Minister rightly said that equipment is important. One fifth of our tanks and a quarter of our surface ships have gone, as have 130 of our aircraft. Is that what he meant when he proclaimed that
	we must ensure that the armed forces are well equipped to do the job?[Official Report, 31 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 1032.]
	It is not only the reserves but the regular forces that have had difficulty in recruitment and retention. The total intake for the three services, if we stop being selective about one or two Scottish regiments, has seen a steady drop in numbers, while the total outflow of United Kingdom regular forces has been increasing. That is the reality.

Peter Bone: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware that the Government recently changed the position of university air squadrons, which provide over 50 per cent. of pilots for the Royal Air Force. They have now stopped elementary flying training, at an alleged saving of 10,000 in total, yet it costs 1.8 million to train a fast-jet pilot. That change will discourage the recruitment that we need.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He knows that my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), has repeatedly made the point that university air squadrons are a very good way not only to recruit pilots to the RAF but to train them. That is something that the Government fail to understand. They are driven by the Treasury, not by the realities.

Mark Pritchard: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern at the haemorrhaging of special forces to the private security sector? Despite reassurances made by Ministers in the House some weeks ago that they were to make an announcement addressing those issues, no announcement has been forthcoming.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that Ministers heard his remarks. I hope that they will in due course make such a statement. I, too, have read reports of the haemorrhaging that he describes.
	At the same time, we are witnessing a dangerous fall-off in training, which is at the heart of the maintenance of effective armed forces. Reductions in training have a progressively damaging effect on fighting power and ethos. At the highest level it may take years to recover standards that have been lost. One cannot buy in experience. Being heavily committed to operations can off-set some of those disadvantages, particularly in respect of command training, but reducing activity levels for field force units that are not committed to operations is a self-inflicted wound.
	In the words of Lord Guthrie, another former Chief of the Defence Staff:
	It should be of great concern that soldiers are now being deployed less well trained than they should be and less well trained than they have been in the past . . . Individual soldiers are less skilled than they were; training standards are too low; gunnery and field firing camps are cancelled; training between infantry, tanks, engineers and those parts of the Army that may have to co-operate and fight together rarely takes place.[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2005; Vol. 668, c. 564.]
	That is not an Opposition spokesman making an accusation across the Dispatch Box; it is a former Chief of the Defence Staff who knows what he is talking about. The Government should have the courage to listen to what they are being told by such men. What action are the Government taking to deal with recruitment, retention and training?

Adam Ingram: rose

Michael Ancram: I shall give way if the Minister wants to answer my question.

Adam Ingram: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should wait and hear what my intervention is. Why does he always pray in aid former chiefs of staff, when sitting beside him is a spokesman who attacks the current chiefs of staff? Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman apologise for what the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has said?

Michael Ancram: I have known General Mike Jackson for a long time. He and I had our disagreements, as the House knows, about the disbandment of regiments this time last year, when the announcement was made in the House and I responded to it. But he is a man for whom I have the utmost respect, and I am sure that after he has retired we will be seeing even more of each other.
	What action, I asked, are the Government taking to address the issues of recruitment, retention and training? None. This in the end is all about cuts. All this talk of making savings comes oddly from a Government who have wasted so much on a mismanaged procurement programme. Despite the launch of the smart procurement initiative in July 1998six and a half years agounder the mantra, faster, cheaper, better, there has been little evidence of success. The National Audit Office major project report of 2004 showed little evidence of project performance improving, finding that the MOD's 20 largest projects were 144 months behind schedule and more than 6 per cent. over budget. That is hardly faster, cheaper and better. I fear that the soon-to-be-published major project report for 2005 will make equally disappointing reading.
	Defence procurement policy remains in a chaotic state, with most of the vital new programmes still awaiting production contract signature. The aircraft carrier project, which we talked about on Monday, is a good example of this Government's incompetence. The Minister of State accused me on Monday of having attacked MOD officials because of the chaos in the programme. I did not; I talked about ministerial incompetence. Procurement decisions are taken by Ministers and they have to accept responsibility. In that project there is still total uncertainty as to when the carriers will enter service, whether they can be provided within budget and what involvement the French might have in the project. This is a shameful reflection of the mess into which the Government have got themselves on defence expenditure.
	The greatest threat to our armed forces posed by this Government is what they are allowing to happen, or in some cases are actually doing, to morale. We all understand that morale is crucial to the health of our armed forces. Of course, Ministers and generals claim that morale is highthey always have and they always will. But that is not what I am hearing on the ground. The effects of overstretch and the equipment shortfall are part of the problem, but there is something more insidious, and I make no excuse for returning to the matter.
	There is considerable disquiet among some members of the forces and concern that, even when doing their perceived duty in an operational situation, they may become vulnerable to prosecution and will not always be backed up higher up the chain of command, where it may be claimed that the matter has been taken out of their hands.
	Those are not my words but those of Field Marshall Lord Bramall in the House of Lords on 14 July.
	The Armed Forces are under legal siege and are being pushed in a direction that will see such an order being deemed as improper or legally unsound. They are being pushed by people schooled not in operations but only in political correctness. They are being pushed to a time when they will fail in an operation because the commanding officer's authority and his command chain has been compromised with tortuous rules not relevant to fighting and where his instinct to be daring and innovative is being buried under the threat of liabilities and hounded out by those who have no concept of what is required to fight and win.[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 122636.]
	Again, those are not my words but those of Lord Boyce, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, in the debate in the House of Lords on 14 July. The Government cannot pretend that those views do not matter. There is a consistency in the views of former Chiefs of the Defence Staff to which the Government must pay attention.
	I am not suggesting that criminal misdemeanours should not be prosecutedof course, they should. However, if we send troops to fight on our behalf they must know that we recognise that a battlefield is not a court of law and that their ability to fight and winand, indeed, in some cases to survivemust not be compromised. Today more than ever they need that support from us.

John Reid: I have listened very carefully indeed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is always judicious and sensitive in his remarks. In so far as he is appealing for us to protect, succour, support and sustain the morale of our armed forces in battle, I agree entirely. As for his remarks about the asymmetric nature of warfare, in which our soldiers are asked to play by civilised rules compared with the enemy, who is unconstrained by morality or rules, I agree entirely. However, where his remarks concern those further up the chain of commandremarks that will only be seen in the context of the accusation of his hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) of a lack of moral courage by the Chief of the General StaffI appeal to him, urge him to distance himself from that imputation. I hope that he will urge his hon. Friend to withdraw his remark, as its implications are unnecessary and it gets in the way of a frank, candid and supportive discussion for our soldiers. I want to do that as well, but I cannot do so when cases are under way, because the judicial system prevents my doing so. I hope, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will distance himself from any criticism of the chiefs of staff, which is entirely separate from accusations against politicians who make those decisions.

Michael Ancram: The Secretary of State will note that my words today are largely not my ownthey are the words of former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. Those men are speaking out in that way, because they realise that the general events surrounding those particular cases have created an environment, atmosphere and psychology in the armed forces that is unhelpful to their operations, and could be very damaging indeed in future. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that this is not rhetoricthis is a reality that is understood by the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. I hope that he will take it on board and address it.

John Reid: Not only do I take that seriously but I met the Chiefs of the Defence Staff a considerable time ago to discuss this precise issue. I did not announce that publicly until today, because I did not intend to make capital out of it. I hope, however, that that reassures the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I take that issue and the support of our troops seriously. Whoever made the original remark, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to dissociate himself from implications that there are criticisms to be levelled, particularly about a lack of moral courage or otherwise, at the Chiefs of the Defence Staff. They do a very difficult job, and they are very brave people, both morally and physically. They have shown that in the past, and they are as concerned as I am to support morale. In a democracy with a separation between the legal process and political decisions, they cannot intervene. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that they are prevented from so doing, so to try to criticise them for not intervening is unfair. That is all that I am asking. He can attack me as much as he likes, but I urge him to withdraw from attacks on the chiefs of staff.

Michael Ancram: I do not think that in anything I have saidor, indeed, in what was said by the former Chiefs of the Defence StaffI have attacked any serving soldier. What I am saying to the Secretary of State is that there is a genuine problem on the ground. I am glad that he acknowledges that. For the well-being of our troops, particularly those who are engaged in dangerous missions overseas on our behalf, that cannot be allowed to continue. Far from the buoyant Army that was described by the Minister of State, the armed forces have problems. Having said that I know the Secretary of State has their interests at heart, I hope that he will address the problems not just with rhetoric, but by finding a way to give the armed forces the moral support that they deserve.
	I turn to some of the tasks undertaken by our armed forces. Those tasks may be overseas, but they are undertaken because they are part of the way that we defend ourselves. I said earlier that our involvement in Afghanistan was based on article 51, which is about self-defence. I would argue that even in Iraq, given the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism, what we are doing relates not only to that country but to our security in the United Kingdom.
	The issues arising in these areas are complex. In Afghanistan, the broadening of ISAF control over the areas where new provincial reconstruction teams are deployed may lead to merging the command structures of Operation Enduring Freedom and the NATO/ISAF operation. We are led to believethe Secretary of State may know more about this than I do, but I saw a report this morningthat not only France but now Belgium could yet veto any integration of US-led forces and NATO-led forces under one command. What is the Government's position on this?
	What role will UK forces playpeacekeeping, counter-insurgency, counter-narcotics, or a combination of them all? If it is a combination, is it seriously suggested that the British contingent could operate under a number of different commands? How will that affect the rules of engagement? The idea that UK forces could be asked to operate under two rules of engagement, with the sort of confusion that arose in Kosovo, is unthinkable. Harmonisation of the rules of engagement of each of the participating countries is essential.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that incipient deployments of additional troops to Afghanistan, if and when the decision is made, will not be at the expense of our commitment in Iraq? I may have been wrong in suggesting that requests for further troops in Iraq have been made. It would be extremely damaging and dangerous at this moment if our troops in southern Iraq were moved over to Afghanistan, leaving a vacuum there.

Desmond Swayne: On 10 November, at column 35, the Secretary of State spelled out in answer to me the high stakes in Iraq. He used terms that were very similar to the language of a speech by Senator John McCain on that very day. Senator McCain's conclusion was that we may have to ramp up our troops in Iraq. I am worried about the mood music and all the talk of withdrawal and troops coming home next year, when in fact the requirement may be the opposite.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, as the House knows, has had experience on the ground in Iraq. I listened carefully to what he said, and he is right. We must be very careful not to persuade ourselves, possibly for trans-Atlantic political reasons, that we are getting to a stage where a draw-down can take place.
	On Monday the Secretary of State admitted, in answer to a question from me, that the proportion of violent contacts between our troops and the insurgents initiated by the insurgents rather than by our troops in the past 12 months has gone up. That is a significant measure. It hardly suggests progress in the fight against insurgency. It rather suggests, as my hon. Friend said, that recent reports of drawing down the numbers of troops in Iraq are over-optimistic.
	I want to mention strategy. I shall not enlarge on this, as I have spoken for a long time already. When I was in Washington recently, I was told about the concern over tactics and strategy in Iraq. It was described to me, perhaps infelicitously, in terms of the game called Whack-a-mole. In the game, little moles appear out of a board, and one tries to hit them in order to score. If one does not hit them, one does not score. It was put to me that a lot of the counter-insurgency work in Iraq is a matter of reacting to where the insurgent appears. I have been told that the Pentagon is examining the oil-spot concept, which we should examine too, in order to begin to establish stability on the ground. [Interruption.] The man who introduced it into current thinking described the concept as an oil spot, because it has the ability to spread. I hope that we are examining that concept, because there are lessons to be learned.
	When we discuss defence in the United Kingdom, any consideration of our military commitments in Iraq or Afghanistan must encompass the general time scale within which our troops will come home. As the Secretary of State knows, I have never sought a firm date, which apart from its impracticability would send a dangerous signal to the insurgents. However, I continue to seek benchmarks against which to assess when the job is done. The time scale was once described to me as the length of a piece of string, but that is no longer good enough, and the string must have knots in it to serve as points of reference as we move along.
	I hope that it has become apparent that defence in the United Kingdom is now indivisible from our wider commitments overseas. They are different elements of a single narrative, and the common thread is the dedicated, committed, courageous and selfless men and women who put themselves and their lives on the line for our country. I despair of this Government, who ask so much of the armed forces and give so little, and I despair of the resolve of the MOD to fight its corner in the corridors of Whitehall and the inner sanctums of the Treasury. We know that we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who neither values nor understands our armed forces, and a Prime Minister who talks big but walks small on the welfare of our servicemen and women.
	In a democracy, there should always be an overriding understanding that, if we commit our armed forces to action, we have a total responsibility for seeing that they are adequately manned, adequately equipped, adequately trained and adequately supported. The Government fail on all those counts, but it is not too late for them to turn over a new leaf and start to fulfil their responsibilities, and I urge them to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind all hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 15-minute time limit on speeches by Back Benchers?

Peter Kilfoyle: I am sorry that the Secretary of State is about to leaveah, he has decided to return. It is not for me to give a man of his calibre advice, but having heard the shadow spokesman's comments, I remind the Secretary of State to beware Greeks and Tories bearing gifts, even if they are only encomiums of praise. I do not know what it does for my right hon. Friend, but it makes me very uneasy when there is such a closeness between the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesman.
	I had the pleasure of watching a drama on television last night about Siegfried Sassoon, who was a great poet. The drama was about his treatment in a hospital in Scotland, where one of his co-rehabilitees was another great war poet, Wilfred Owen. The immortal lines of Wilfred Owen's greatest poem come to mind:
	The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.
	No one wants to see the modern soldier reduced to the condition of soldiers in the first world war.
	It was interesting to hear Sir Ian Blair deliver the Dimbleby lecture and discuss the need for a great and open debate on policing in this country. His speech reminded me that the Secretary of State for Defence recently said that there should be a national debate about what replaces Trident, and I want to discuss the changed circumstances and whether we need to replace Trident.
	The strategic defence review reported in 1998. The House of Commons Library note on the review makes the valid remark that the SDR then was evolutionary rather than revolutionary. However, it did not face up in a radical way to many of the circumstances that it should have done, but continued the pre-existing policy.
	The one thing on which I will agree with the Government is that circumstances have changed dramatically since 9/11. We are told that it was year zero and that all the rules of the game have changed. If so, we need a proper review of our overall defensive strategy.
	Before the debate, I jotted down some of the things that have happened since 9/11 to change dramatically our stance, or implied stance, given our close relationship with the United States on a bilateral basis and through NATO. Our close allies, to whom, we are told, we are inextricably linked, are considering the weaponisation of space. Members on both sides of the House recently went to a briefing with the Washington-based Centre for Defence Studies on exactly how the air force is developing plans for that. The Americans have adopted the notion of full spectrum dominance, with the aspiration of dominating land, sea, air, space and cyberspace. They have taken up the notion of pre-emptive war, which we thought was unacceptable for the west. They have even started to moot, with some support from the previous Secretary of State for Defence, the idea that nuclear strikes on non-nuclear countries, even in a pre-emptive mode, would be feasible. There have been various withdrawals from treaties to which we all subscribed, and a failure to implement others, including those that have a direct impact on whether Trident is replaced.
	We are entering a time frame in which we are considering earmarking expenditure for Trident's successor. There is ample evidence that a lot of money has been allocated in preparation for the new generation of warheads for it. Refitting has already taken place at Aldermaston.
	We are in a different world and about to embark on a new course. There is no more suitable time for a complete review of what our defence objectives, strategy and priorities should be.

Julian Lewis: In support of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Trident, albeit from the opposite side of the argument, I remind him that in the 1980s, in the run-up to Trident, the then Conservative Government published a series of open government defence documents that aired the arguments about the decision to replace Polaris with Trident. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government are serious about starting the debate, they should begin by publishing a similar rationale, so that the public debate can get under way as to why we need a successor or, indeed, why we do not?

Peter Kilfoyle: A future risk assessment was carried out in March 2003 to consider our changing circumstances, but unfortunately it was not taken up politically. We are in a different world. The Government have to show us what enemy, real or potential, Trident would be aimed at, and how that fits in with the emphasis on asymmetrical warfare that was mentioned in the future risk assessment. The stuff that Kitson predicted many years ago about the sort of warfare that would be endemicI would argue, throughout the 21st centuryhas come to pass. We should consider that through a great national debate, not, as the current Secretary of State suggested, simply on a successor to Trident but on what our policy objectives should be.
	We must not be pre-emptive in our discussions. Nothing should be excluded and nothing should necessarily be included. We should have a full and open debate analogous to that for which Ian Blair called for the police. Why do we not hold such a debate on the future role of our defence forces? That does not in any way minimise their current importance or dispositionwe will all have arguments about thatbut we need to look to the future with an open mind, not a closed one.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not the military, should lead such a review. If we accept another old adage, that warfare is diplomacy by other means, we should establish our diplomatic priorities first and everything else should fit around that. The only way to avoid the accusation that big boys' toys win out is to hold a serious, wide-ranging and open debate on what we face in the 21st century.
	Apart from the arguments about the reasons for the Iraq war, Denis Healey concluded our commitments east of Suez 39 years ago, but now we find that we are drifting further east. We have a commitment in Iraq, and that in Afghanistan is about to be expanded. We can only fear the speculation that suggests that our commitments may spill over into Iran or Syria. Long before today, we placed what we were capable of doing against what we aspired to do. We need to examine closely the matrix of foreign policy and diplomatic objectives and defence objectives.
	I am conscious that we have only a short time, and I do not have a great deal more to say. I support a complete and open debate, before we are committed to a successor to Trident, to take account of the same circumstances that are drilled into us at every opportunity by Government spokesmen and women.
	There was an interchange between the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and the Secretary of State about the moral courage or otherwise of Chiefs of the Defence Staff. I would not particularise or make an accusation for the sake of itfor what it is worth, I do not believe that one was madebut nobody is beyond criticism, whether they are Chiefs of the Defence Staff or ordinary squaddies. Everybody has a part to play in any military enterprise. They know their responsibilities and they should face up to them. It is fatuous to assume that, simply because somebody carries the great title of CDS or CGS, they should be immune from criticism. However, I accept that, as the Secretary of State said, a case has to be made.
	Let us make another case. Perhaps we would not be facing some of the dangers that confront us today if we had listened to the then Chief of the Defence Staff at the outset of the Iraq war. Lord Boyce questioned the legality, discussed the appropriateness of the kit and whether it was fit for use and, critically, looked for an exit strategy, which was not there. It ill behoves us to criticise people when they get it right. In that instance, if we had listened a little more to the military at the top, our soldiers and our interests would not be facing some of the dangers that confront us today.

Michael Moore: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) made some important points, to which I hope to return. I join in the earlier tributes to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). In the past three or four years, I have sat through many foreign affairs and defence debates in which he has participated. I have listened to many of his speeches. We have not always agreedwe may not do so on certain matters this afternoonbut I have never doubted his commitment and knowledge. I am sure that he will continue to contribute to our debates on those matters in future.Tributes were quite properly paid earlier to the bravery, dedication and professionalism of the armed forces in this country in all their different roles, on operations abroad or in the United Kingdom. There were also tributes to the emergency services and the way in which they work with the armed forces in carrying out their terrible duties on days such as 7 July this year. I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with those comments.
	On Remembrance Sunday last weekend, we all in our different ways, at constituency events or elsewhere, paid tribute to veterans and to those who gave their lives in the service of this country. A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to visit the Earl Haig poppy factory in Edinburgh. I was shown around and saw not just the great work in the factory, which produces millions of poppies every year, but the work undertaken with the money raised. In Scotland, about 1.4 million was raised last year. In the rest of the UK, I understand that the British Legion raises about 23 million through its appeal. That is both a staggering achievement and a sign of just how important it is that we continue to work on behalf of those living in our communities who have served this country. It is right that we should continue to remember those who gave their lives in world wars, and all others who have done so in the service of their country.
	The debate is fairly broadly defined, which the contributions so far have demonstrated comprehensively. I want to focus on a few key areas. In the past, Select Committee reports have sometimes been the focus of these debates. There have been none as yet in this Parliament, but I know that the Defence Committee has been working extremely hard and has had some interesting evidence sessions, which I hope will lead to reports in due course.
	I commend the Ministry of Defence for its annual reporta comprehensive document that provides a useful focus on the MOD's thinking and its activities throughout the year. I will try to follow loosely the structure of that report in picking out subjects for discussion.
	It is fair to say that defence in the United Kingdom is based on a strategy for which there is a large degree of consensus in the country. That is not to ignore substantial differences over specific issues such as Iraq, nor to suggest that there is not plenty of scope for major disagreements over many areas of implementation and detail. One of the most significant strategic issues, however, which has the potential to unpick that consensus, is the future of nuclear policy, to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton referred.
	The defence White Paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World, published in December 2003, first raised the issue of the replacement of Trident when it indicated that a decision was likely to be required in this Parliament. At the time, the quote might have looked as though it was tucked away in relative obscurity at the bottom of page 10, but since the election it has attracted a great deal of attention in this House and elsewhere. That is entirely understandable, as this is one of the most important debates that the country will have.
	Our election manifesto committed us to work first and foremost for the elimination of nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis while retaining the United Kingdom's current minimum nuclear deterrent. We retain that position. If we are to be able to make a decision on the replacement of Trident, however, a properly informed debate is needed beforehand. There are significant questions about the timingwhy now? We need information about the options being considered and the costs that go with them, assessing not only whether it is a cost that the country can afford, but the opportunity costs in the sense of what will be lost if we divert resources to that particular investment. We also need a full and frank debate about the strategic context, not just about the nature of the threatwe need to bear in mind that we are trying to predict 20 or 30 years onas we also need to take account of the projected alliances of which we are members.
	There are, of course, philosophical, moral and many otherincluding even instinctivereasons that will be brought into the debate. We must have that debate, and to inform it I would endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) about the need for a consultation paper. In response to a question put by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on Monday, the Secretary of State indicated that he might come forward with a Green Paper on the matter, and we believe that he should. I hope that in replying to this afternoon's debate, the Under-Secretary will be able to give us a firmer commitment on that, and preferably a timetable.
	One of the key areas of policy that will be before us before long is the proposed armed forces Bill. It has already been subject to some pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill is important as a quinquennial review of service discipline, but this time we know that it will be more than a tidy-up. It will deal with streamlining the different systems in the three services into one, while seeking to harmonise military law more closely with civilian law. The core principle of service discipline is that the military is not above the law and must operate within it. The Ministry of Defence mission statement does not talk only about the need to defend the UK and its interests and strengthen international peace and securityit rightly adds that our forces must
	act for a force for good in the world.
	We certainly believe that operating within the law is a prerequisite for that. That is a heavy burden to place on military personnel, who face untold dangers and take daily risks with their own and others' lives. As was observed earlier, they cannot strike or speak out and they have to go where they are sent. We surely owe them a vast duty of care. As a minimum, that requires a clear set of rules and clear law that take account of the extraordinary things that we expect of them.
	Recent case law, with Trooper Williams and the collapse of the 3 Paras trial a couple of weeks ago, has put those issues under a sharp spotlight. We must carefully learn the lessons from those cases. The Minister has said that a comprehensive review of those cases is now under way. Indeed, he rebuked some of us last week, during the debate on the urgent question of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes, for apparently rushing to conclusions. It is always a delicate balancing actwe are not allowed hindsight, but we must not pre-judge either. Fine, but we need assurances that some of the issues highlighted by people involved in those cases are seriously examined. We need prompt and timely investigationswithout any massive gaps between the alleged incidents and the investigationand adequate resources must be made available for them. There should also be proper legal expertise among not only those pursuing the case, but those actually doing the investigation.
	In bringing forward the new Bill, we need a commitment that we will see not only the law being reformed, but the resources necessary to ensure an effective and just system of military law. It would certainly help the House if, in replying to the debate, the Under-Secretary could clarify when he anticipates the publication of the Bill and its proceedings through Parliament. Will he also make it clear whether there is any intention to use the quasi-Select Committee approach to the Bill's consideration, as used in the past?
	Military law underpins the services and is vital to our credibility in the wider world, but it also matters to people here in Britain, not least to the parents of young servicemen and womenthe gatekeepers, as the Secretary of State put it in the House a few weeks ago. Confidence in the disciplinary system is absolutely necessary, not least to root out the bullying that breaks out from time to time, and which is a scar on our armed forces' reputation. The latest available Army version of the armed forces continuous attitude survey to April of this year makes for grim reading in that respect. One key set of findings highlights the fact that 25 per cent. of soldiers had cause to complain about unfair treatment, discrimination, harassment and/or bullying. More than half were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the objectivity and fairness with which their complaint was handled. I accept that that is a snapshot, but it is a worrying signal at a time when the tragic events at Deepcut remain firmly in the public eye. Ministers are well aware of the dissatisfaction of parents and families with the investigation so far and their anger at the limited publication of the Devon and Cornwall police report. Many also have long-standing fears about restrictions to the scope of the Blake review.
	Ministers know better than any of us the damage that such things can do to recruitment, and will want to limit it. I understand that we can expect no commitments from Ministers at least until the Blake review has been completed. However, I hope that they will recognise parents' fears that this review will not necessarily succeed in answering their questions, and that they will be ready to push such issues further if the outcome is unsatisfactory to them. In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) raised concerns about publication of the full report of the Devon and Cornwall police review of the Surrey police investigation. We welcome the Minister's sensitive comments and hope that that will lead to some progress.
	If I may, I want to change the focus and turn to what is potentially one of the MOD's great success stories: Qinetiq, which, according to its own blurb:
	is one of the world's leading defence technology and security companies.
	It does indeed have an impressive track record that stretches back to its original MOD days. It was involved in the development of liquid crystal displays, carbon fibre, microwave radar and much else besides. Today, it is at the forefront in many fields, including defence interests such as unmanned aerial vehicles and robotic bomb disposal, and other developments such as runway radar, which is used to identify dangerous debris. It has a breathtaking range of capabilities, fantastic employees, great management and wonderful potential.
	As guardian of our national security, and as a shareholder and customer, the MOD clearly has a significant interest in the future of Qinetiq. This is surely an issue for Parliament, given the intention to proceed to flotation. All the signs for a flotation are there. Last year's readiness study by Morgan Stanley apparently concluded that flotation was appropriate. This year, Credit Suisse First Boston, JP Morgan and Merrill Lynch were appointed as financial advisers, with the ubiquitous Rothschild as consultants. Acquisitions continue apace, particularly in the important United States market, but also in Belgium with the acquisition of a satellite maker. At the very least, that will challenge a few long-held stereotypes about Belgium.
	Press reports over the summer indicated that we are heading toward a 1 billion flotation by the end of the year. However, according to recent reports such as that in The Daily Telegraph,
	it is understood to be gearing up for a . . . flotation in the first half of next year.
	It is hard to find any clues from official sources so far. The MOD properly refers to the company in its annual reports and financial statements, but there is no mention of the flotation. Qinetiq's own annual reportadmittedly, it is six months oldtalks about it only in principle.  In an interesting recent development, the company's website commented on an article that appeared in the Guardian late last summer and spoke about the purported flotation, rather than an actual flotation. There is much coyness about the matter, but quite a lot of information has slipped into the public domain. Perhaps this debate offers a chance for Parliament to begin to share in that information, as there are serious issues to be considered.
	Ministers may say that flotation is a matter for the company, but Qinetiq's executive chairman, Sir John Chisholm, said, when asked after last year's positive readiness review why no flotation was in prospect, that it was
	a matter for the shareholders.
	It is important to remember that after the part-privatisation of a few years ago, the MOD retains a 56 per cent. shareholding. Employees have 13 per cent. and the private Carlyle group has 31 per cent. Therefore, the question of flotation is very much one for the Government and Parliament.
	Important questions need to be addressed. For example, who is driving the demands of the flotation? Clearly, the company's management is incentivised and therefore has an interest in the matter. The Carlyle group has made it clear that it wants an exit from its strategic investment, but is the drive coming from the Treasury, whose instinct is to sell things off and raise money, or is it coming from the Shareholder Executive, which is responsible for the most commercial parts of Government and has some challenging targets to meet?
	It would be helpful if some suggestions in the press could be put to rest. For instance, there has been talk that the financial imperatives of the flotation are leading Qinetiq to bulk up by acquisition and to focus less on pure research. How are we to ensure that the taxpayer will get a fair return? That is important, not least because it appears that the Carlyle group has some very interesting tax shelter arrangements in Guernsey, which most outside observers consider to be highly unusual in this context.
	Will the MOD receive receipts for its already tight budget? So far, the company's profitability has depended on its contracts with the Ministry. Some reports say that Qinetiq will receive 250 million from any flotation and that the rest will go to the Treasury. The veracity of that is hard to assess when we do not have the full picture or know whether the MOD will retain a direct stake in the company.
	There is also a very important national security angle to the matter. As I have mentioned already, Qinetiq is a significant supplier to the MOD, so its ownership will be of crucial national interest. A special share is mooted, and its creation might indicate that the company will not be listed abroad or that it will not move into foreign ownership. Where might Thales or even BAE Systems fit within those requirements? After the flotation, how will potential conflicts be handled and will there be a new basis for Government funding to the company?
	There is no doubt that other issues merit consideration and I have given the House just a sample. My understanding is that the flotation does not require primary legislation, and I should be grateful if the Minister who winds up the debate will confirm that much at least. If no such legislation is needed, how will Parliament be involved in the legitimate scrutiny of what would be a very significant development?
	I emphasise that I believe that Qinetiq is an excellent company and that my party has no objection in principle to its flotation. However, many unanswered questions remain, to which Parliament really should receive an answer before the flotation proceeds much further.
	Qinetiq is a major part of the early development of future capabilities for the military. The MOD properly expends a great deal of effort in that areathe future of provision of equipment to the military has already figured strongly in this debate, as has the related defence-industrial strategy that will underpin it. It is understood that Lord Drayson will make an announcement soon, and I hope that we will then be able to have a serious and informed debate on the matter.
	One final matter in respect of future capabilities has to do with the regiments. This is well-trodden ground: I respect the fact that recent presentations to Members of Parliament have set out what is planned, and that the game will soon be up. However, I hope that Ministers do not lose sight of the fact that there is still a great deal of anger and resentment in communities throughout many parts of the country, not least in my constituency. We will not only lose our local regimentsthe King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scotsbut those regiments will be merged into a single battalion of the new Royal Regiment of Scotland.
	I have never been persuaded that the modernisation, which we support, requires abandoning the historical regiments and all that goes with them. Will the Minister at least give us assurances today about the future of the museums and regimental headquarter offices, which act as a focal point for communities in different parts of the country?

Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Scottish regimentsI have an interest because members of my family fought in the Black Watchcan retain their cap badges, whereas English regiments are not allowed to do so?

Michael Moore: Indeed. I do not wish to comment, but I am sure that the Minister has heard the hon. Lady's point. Perhaps he will be able to explain the situation to her in due course because I know how important it is.
	My father was a chaplain in the Army for five years, during which time he was attached to the Royal Highland Fusiliers. I visited its museum a few weeks ago, as have Ministers and many other hon. Members. The traditions and legacies are importantso many people are distressed that they will be lost. There is still one major effort going on outside Parliament to illustrate the folly of what is being done and the strength of feeling among the public. When the national petitions are brought to Parliament, I hope that Ministers will take careful account of them.
	I am sure that this will continue to be a wide-ranging debate because there are many contributions still to come. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity to deal with the huge range of issues raised, whether that is in his winding-up speech or by correspondence in due course. We devote a great deal of parliamentary time to such matters, but given what we ask of our servicemen and women, that is only right and proper.

David Wright: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) in this afternoon's important debate on defence in the UK. I shall address my remarks to issues surrounding Shropshire and the civilians who work for the Ministry of Defence there. I shall then raise a couple of points about policy to which I hope the Minister will listen.
	Before that, I pay tribute to those who run the armed forces parliamentary scheme, especially Sir Neil. I have been on the scheme over the past 12 months or so with the Royal Marines. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience, and was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood). We had some interesting times, especially in northern Norway when we slept out in a tent in temperatures between minus 32 and 34 C. We got a rounded view of how the Royal Marines operate. The scheme should continue to receive the support of Parliament and hon. Members.
	Increasinglyand thankfullyMembers of Parliament do not in large part have the opportunity to serve their country in the field of conflict. Although that is a good thing, it is important for people to go out and get a taste of military life, and the armed forces parliamentary scheme enables them to do that.
	Before I speak generally about civilian posts in the Ministry of Defence in Shropshire, it is important that I pay tribute to members of our armed forces throughout the globe who are serving us in these difficult times. They do a tremendous job. The Royal Marines are deployed out there, as are other parts of our armed forces. We should pay tribute to them wholeheartedly this afternoon for the work that they do on our behalf.
	I am worried about several of the changes that the Government are proposing to the civilian structures that service and serve the Ministry of Defence. I want to raise three particular concerns. The first relates to the Donnington site, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is in the Chamber today. The site is large and significant; it is affectionately known locally as the depot and has provided a large number of jobs over many years for people across Telford, the Wrekin and the wider Shropshire area. We received some difficult news earlier this year when the Government announced that they were planning to review and indeed lay off members of staff in the Army Base Repair Organisation at Donnington. They also announced a further phase of reviews. Last week, the Minister of State announced a further 628 job losses at the ABRO site up to 2010. I, other Members and the local community were devastated at that news.
	The future for Donnington is not all dark, however. The future defence supply chain initiative has been rescued for Donnington. We shall still have a Ministry of Defence presence at the site and there may be some scope for jobs growth in the FDSCI structure. Of course, that is at the expense of the closure of the base at Stafford and I hope that some posts may move from there to the Donnington site. However, the news about ABRO is devastating for local communities and I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to meet us to talk about the issues.

Mark Pritchard: The hon. Gentleman mentioned jobs growth at Donnington. Can he clarify which Minister confirmed, and when, that new jobs will be created at Donnington? That news would come as a surprise to the work force.

David Wright: The hon. Gentleman is right. The FDSCI announcement was about job losses at Donnington, but I hope that as we debate the future structure of the site there may be growth in some areas of the supply chain. That would be positive. No announcement has yet been made, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in wanting to debate the issues over the coming months.
	I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to meet the trade unions and the leader of the new council taskforce to discuss the situation at Donnington, and I hope that my hon. Friendif I may call him thatthe Member for The Wrekin will join us at that meeting. It is important to show a united front in our efforts to ensure that jobs at ABRO are protected. If they are to go, however, we must prepare the local community as best we can. We need to ensure that people are offered opportunities for retraining and reskilling, and the taskforce idea could enable us to do that.

Jeremy Corbyn: As someone who grew up near the Donnington depotwhich we used to refer to as the dump, but that is the way it was in those daysI obviously hope that my hon. Friend is successful in his meetings with the Minister. Are any of the proposed job losses at Donnington due to the contracting-out culture that is rife in the MOD, and the possible privatisation of some services? There is a committed and skilled long-term, loyal work force at Donnington who should be looked after.

David Wright: My hon. Friend is right. We may be taking a step too far with some of the proposals for privatisation and the business structures relating to the supply chain, maintenance structures and services that the Donnington work force perform so well. We shall be debating those issues with the Minister over the coming months. There is an opportunity for us to discuss the outline business case that has been drawn up. My understanding from the trade unions, whose representatives have seen the outline case document, is that it does not discuss in detail the advantages of retaining jobs and services at Donnington. We shall certainly want to focus on that issue when we talk to the Minister in the coming weeks.
	One of the best apprenticeship schemes is run from the ABRO site at Donnington. It is a shame that we may lose an extremely good scheme that not only serves the MOD but provides skills for people who go into the private sector. Those are high-value, high-quality jobs and we need to try to work together to defend them.
	It would also help if the Minister could say something, perhaps in his winding-up speech, about possible Government support for the proposed rail freight terminal in the north Telford area, which straddles my constituency and that of the hon. Member for The Wrekin. It would be particularly positive if the Government could help us to ensure that that terminal is built in Telford, using a mix of MOD land and land owned by the public. That could bring several hundred jobs into the local economy. I hope that Ministers will look closely at the options and the proposals made by the local authority to develop a rail freight terminal on that site, which, I repeat, is fondly known as the depot.
	The second sort of work that goes on in the wider Telford and Wrekin area is that of the Equipment Support Procurement and Provision Agency, which is located in my constituency at Stafford Park. Constituents of the hon. Member for The Wrekin also work at that facility and we are both extremely concerned about its future and ongoing activities. ESPPA was formed in 1995 from the technical equipment division at Donnington, the procurement branch at Andover and the vehicle spares division at Chilwell. More than 400 employees work at Sapphire House, where ESPPA is located.
	Proposals are being considered to collocate that facility at Abbey Wood in Bristol. That is extremely alarming to local employees and local trade unions. I have met the trade unions who represent members at that facility, and they are finding it difficult to determine exactly what the Government's proposals are. There is great concern that Ministers are getting to a point where they almost have a fait accompli and that the facilities offered at Sapphire House will almost automatically move to Abbey Wood. I should like to raise that incredibly important issue again with the Minister at our meeting on 29 November.
	It is important that the jobs at ESPPA stay in Telford for a number of reasons. I do not think that the 400-plus people will redeploy to Bristol. They will probably have to find jobs in the wider economy. I do not want that to happen; I want those jobs to stay in Telford. The MOD will find it incredibility difficult to recruit staff in Bristol, certainly skilled staff. These are skilled jobs. Those people procure products for the armed forces. It will be difficult to replace them when most of them will not want to move from the Telford area. Of course, it is also more expensive to live in Bristol and I am sure that many people will not want to move because the costs of living are greater there.
	Salaries will be greater for the MOD in the Bristol area. One of Telford's great advantages is that it represents excellent value for money in terms of costs to the MOD. Such a move would run counter to the principles of the Lyons review. That is also the case for ABRO. We should ensure that defence has a footprint right across the UK, including the midlands and the north. Moving jobs to the south of England is symptomatic of our not having a footprint right across the UK. That is somewhat alarming. I want to raise issues that relate to ABRO as well as ESPPA with the Minister on 29 November, and I hope that we will be joined by trade union colleagues.
	The third issue that I want to talk about is the defence training review at Cosford, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin. We obviously share the fact that many of our constituents are employed there. I do not want to say too much about Cosfordthe hon. Gentleman will probably have quite a lot to say about itbut it is important to note that there are 1,038 military jobs at Cosford and 942 civilian and contractor posts, as far as I am aware, and it is a jobs engine for our local economy.
	The defence training review is being examined at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) will also be interested in theoutcome of that review. Cosford presents the opportunity to provide an excellent location for defence training in the UK. The site could expand by up to 300 per cent. in a number of scenarios. That would give us a real opportunity to provide new jobs, which are so important in the Shropshire economy, and which will service not just Telford and Wrekin residents, but the black country and the wider west midlands area.
	I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the proposals relating to Cosford and the defence training review. It is an incredibly important site for us. In some ways, we are an RAF county, with the RAF presence at Shawbury and Cosford, and the RAF has a long tradition of being in Shropshire. I hope that we will continue to have that presence in the county and see it expanded over time.
	This is a big contract. I understand that two competitors, with two separate sites, have emerged to be examined by Government, and I understand that that decision may be some time away, but it is important that the Minister should once again engage more generally with regard to the importance of defence training jobs within the wider Shropshire economy.
	I close by looking at two broader policy issues that have already been raised in the debate. The first relates to our independent nuclear deterrent and the second to community ownership of the armed forces. Clearly, we will have to make some decision in the coming months and years about whether we retain an independent nuclear deterrent. The manifesto on which I stood understandably commits us to retention of that independent deterrent, but I hope that we will have a wide-ranging debate about how appropriate that is, in the sense that the world has changed somewhat. Certainly, a replacement for Trident would be extremely expensive.
	I put it clearly on the record that I would support the Government and vote for the replacement of the independent nuclear deterrent. I am not suggesting that we abandon it, but I am not sure that we need to go for an extremely expensive deterrent option. We must look at a raft of options. We may have to consider nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, which may be deployed from different platforms. We need a wide-ranging debate on that and to think about the money that we are spending. Certainly the concern of members of the armed forces is that, if we are to deploy troops effectively in a modern environment and meet the challenges that now face us as a country, we need to invest significantly in flexible response conventional forces.

David Davies: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments and I am delighted that he supports Britain having an independent nuclear deterrent. Is he pleased about the fact that a Conservative Government won elections in 1979, 1983 and 1987 when his colleagues were trying to scrap our independent nuclear deterrent?

David Wright: That is an interesting point, but times have moved on. I hope that I have made my position very clear this afternoon.
	My position is clear. I support the retention of an independent nuclear deterrent, but we need to consider a range of costed options before we decide to commit.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend confident that this deterrent is either a deterrent or independent?

David Wright: That is the very debate that we need to have, but I have put my position clearly on the line this afternoon. I would vote for retention. Some of the people in my local Labour party may disagree with me, but I am willing to say that I think that we need to have that independent deterrent but that we need to look at options other than Trident or a replacement for Trident, which are incredibly expensive. There must be cheaper options that we can use and divert resources into conventional forces.
	I want to finish by talking about community ownership of the armed forces. We have moved away from that in the changes that have been made to the regiments with their identities based on counties, and that is a shame. Over the years, my relatives have served in the King's Shropshire Light Infantry and the Royal Artillery, although that is a distinct regiment, obviously not based upon a country structure. I wish that we could do more to keep a community connection with our armed forces. We do not seem to name our ships any more after counties or towns. We seem to give them more general names. Let us start to think about connecting our communities again with our armed forces. Let us have an HMS Shropshire or an HMS Wrekin

Kevan Jones: HMS Telford.

David Wright: Indeed. Let us start to think about identity and how we connect and reconnect our communities with our armed forces. It is so important.

James Arbuthnot: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) has just said. I share fully in his praise for the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and I will come on to recruitment and the community connection that he talked about. I think that a great deal of benefit would be achieved by naming a ship HMS Hampshire, but then I would say that, wouldn't I?
	I must begin, and it is a huge pleasure to do so, by paying tribute to my predecessor as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He truly believes in defence and in this country. He has served the House and the Defence Committee very well over the past two Parliaments and his shoes are difficult to fillindeed, everything is difficult to fill because he is larger than life.
	It is a new Committee. It has outstanding support from its staff; we are very lucky in that regard. From what I can see of the way it is working so far, it will be an extremely good Committee. It is larger than before: the number of members has increased from 11 to 14. It was over-subscribed. A lot of people who would have liked to be on it are not. We are working very hard, as the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) kindly said. We have a full programme. We have started investigating the carriers and the joint combat aircraft. We have already had some interesting evidence sessions on that. We have also started an inquiry into delivering future capability for the Royal Air Force. Yesterday, we were at RAF Marham and saw some dedicated and enthusiastic people there working to do exactly that.
	I asked the Minister of State earlier what the repair arrangements were going to be for the joint combat aircraft and for the Nimrods. That was with a view to discovering whether there was a principle behind his move of the repair facilities from, for example, DARA St. Athan to RAF Marham. I was disappointed in his reply in that he said that he simply did not know the answer. Therefore, it did not strike me that there was much principle behind the move. We will have to go into that.
	The Defence Committee is beginning an inquiry in relation to Afghanistan, where the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps will deploy next year. We have already had some interesting discussions about the difficult circumstances that it will face when it gets there. We have had informal briefings at the MOD and taken introductory evidence from the Secretary of State for Defence.
	The Defence Committee will move on to discuss the topic that is increasingly coming up in this debate: the independent nuclear deterrent. I echo the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. When the Secretary of State said that we needed a debate about that subject, he was absolutely right but, for heaven's sake, when is it going to begin? The Committee will play its part in making sure that there is a debate on that matter, but we will need to encourage the MOD to be open, as it was when Trident was first introduced. Perhaps we will need to encourage the MOD to an openness that it has previously resisted, but which would greatly strengthen its hand.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased by what the right hon. Gentleman says about the possibility of the Defence Committee undertaking an inquiry on the issue. Could it do so in conjunction with the Foreign Affairs Committee, so that issues of non-proliferation and disarmament could be considered? They are also part of the debate and should form part of the discussion.

James Arbuthnot: I shall draw that question to the attention of my Committee. It is an interesting idea and it would not be right for me to rule it out or in. I shall leave that to the Committee in its wisdom, which isI thinkgreat.
	We have not yet found the right formula for these debates on defence in the UK. Defence always used to be debated in relation to what we did overseas, because of the expeditionary strategy that this country always used to follow. However, it is good to remember our history. Trafalgar was an overseas event, despite the fact that the name now sounds English to our ears. I wish to draw attention to the outstanding celebrations this year of the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar and, unusually perhaps, to pay particular tribute to my great-great-great-great-grandfather, a captain at Trafalgar who sadly had his head blown off on the day. His memorial is next to Nelson's in St. Paul's cathedral.
	The role of defence in the UK was drawn starkly to our attention on 7 July, when we discovered that the threat is as much at home as it is abroad. The Defence Committee suggested in an earlier report that the Government had relied too much on the expeditionary strategy. It said that
	the MOD is giving insufficient priority to the role which the Armed Forces may in the future be called upon to fulfil in respect of the defence of the homeland.
	The Government soundly rejected that. Their reply said that
	current Defence policy rightly emphasises the role of the Armed Forces in supporting wider foreign and security policy objectives. But . . . the Armed Forces contribute specific capabilities to standing home commitments and are held ready to support the civil authorities if requested to do so.
	I am glad that the Government said that, because we must not forget the experience of the United States in the dreadful tragedy of New Orleans, when it was discovered that too many of their troops had been called overseas to Iraq and were no longer able to perform the home support role with their previous facility. Every decision that we take on overseas engagement has consequences. Next year, 8,000 troops will be in Iraq and we do not yet know how many will be in Afghanistan. There will also be troops in the Balkans, Northern Irelandnot that that is abroad, of courseGermany, Cyprus, the Falklands and Brunei.
	The Minister said that he will never tire of paying tribute to the commitment, dedication and bravery of our forces, and neither will I. We will always say that. At the end of the cold war, we decided that it was right to reduce our spending on defence and cut troop numbers. That was a mistake, although I did not think so at the time. It was a mistake that we all made, but we have discovered since the 1990s that the world did not become safer or more secure after the cold war; it needed more troops, not fewer. Nevertheless, ever since then we have seen a rundown in the number of our troops. We need to reverse that mistake. Pressures abroad have consequences at homein overstretch and in breaches of the harmony guidelinesand the Committee will certainly have to keep a very close eye on that. Recruitment is therefore a difficult, important issue.
	I have the impression that the Ministry of Defence is not sure why recruitment is so difficult. I have the impression, too, from something that the Secretary of State said, that he is not entirely sure what we can do about it. I have one suggestion. The Chief of the Defence Staff suggested on Sunday morning that reputational issues and matters such as Deepcut have consequences for armed forces recruitment, and I think that he must be right about that.
	The Committee published a valuable report earlier this year on the duty of care. We will begin to recruit at the necessary level only if we in the House and in the country show an absolute determination to treat our troops outstandingly well, both in their service and in their training. A good demonstration of that, if I may make a suggestion to the Minister who will reply to the debate, would be made by implementing the Committee's strong recommendation for an independent tribunal to look into complaints against the armed forces. The independence of that tribunal is essential. It would require a very deep change in mindset in the MOD, but it would be good for the MOD, good for our armed forces and very good indeed for the country.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased to able to take part in the debate. Unfortunately, the Minister of State would not give way to me earlier when I tried to intervene about human resources. I wanted to make the point that when there are media stories and court cases concerning appalling harassment of certain individualswomen and gay and lesbian officersin the armed forces, there has at the very least to be the most rigorous examination of the facts, but there also has to be action to ensure that the culture does not continue. It would be helpful if the entire report on Deepcut were made available, so that we could all be assured that no residual culture of harassment remained in the armed forces. Such reports and stories must have an effect on recruitment, and therefore have to be dealt with.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) raised several issues about recruitment; clearly there is an enormous problem. Part of that problem is the question of rights within the service, but the disenchantment of many members of the public with the policies in Iraq is part of it, too. I have met the families of some of the soldiers who laid down their life in Iraq. Some feel very angry, some feel very bitter and some feel that the soldiers were misled into going to war. The atmosphere surrounding the question of Iraq has had a huge effect on recruitment. Clearly, many people do not want to face up to that, but they will have to face up to the sense of disillusionment with the policies in Iraq.
	I shall make a couple of brief points about Iraq and then talk mainly about nuclear weapons and the Trident replacement. In 2003 the House voted to go to war in Iraq to support the Government's strategy there. We still have 8,000 troops in Iraq, and have lost nearly 100 British troops. Nearly 2,000 US soldiers have laid down their lives, and an unknown number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians have died. According to The Lancet, as many as 100,000 may have died in the conflict. It is perfectly reasonable to ask how much longer troops will be there, and whether the mere presence of British and American forces has not become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. They may be attracting insurgent attacks, rather than achieving a solution to the obvious problems. While we are fed a diet of news about the problems in Iraq, we are not necessarily told that a significant number of Iraqi politicians, including those elected to the Iraqi Parliament who strongly oppose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that today's debate is about defence in the UK?

Jeremy Corbyn: I do not want to challenge your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if it is about defence in the UK it is perfectly obvious that the presence of British troops in Iraq is part of the debate. Other Members have mentioned the presence of British troops in the Falklands, Gibraltar, Brunei, Cyprus and Germany, so why can we not mention Iraq?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am quite happy to have a passing reference to the position of troops in other countries, but I do not want this to develop into a debate on Iraq.

Jeremy Corbyn: I have no intention of turning it into a debate on Iraq, but Iraq is an important factor in British military expenditure and the approach taken by the Ministry of Defence. It is clearly central to the Ministry's policy making. When the Secretary of State replies to the debate, as I am sure he will, I hope that he will tell us when those 8,000 troops will come home. At the moment, it appears that it will be December 2006 at the earliest. In view of the disturbing news earlier this week about the use of phosphorus by United States and British forces, we want an assurance that chemical weapons will not be used in any form, even as an incendiary device to guide others into an attack, because of the danger of their use against civilians, which is illegal under the 1925 convention on chemical warfare.
	I am a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, as is well known, and I chair the parliamentary CND group. The arguments against the nuclear deterrent are very strong, and we need to have a serious public debate about it. I therefore welcome what a number of hon. Members have said, particularly the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who chairs the Select Committee on Defence and said that it may be prepared to undertake an investigation or inquiry into the matter. I repeat what I said in my intervention, when he kindly gave way to me. The Defence Committee ought to be joined by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Defence Committee has responsibility for defence matters, but it does not have responsibility for disarmament policy nor, indeed, for the operation of the non-proliferation treaty, which is clearly relevant. I therefore hope that that suggestion will be considered seriously by both Committees, because it would make an important contribution to the public debate.
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) talked about US strategy, which includes full-spectrum dominance and thus the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. Indeed, there are many signs that the US is already spending very large sums on preparing for a post-Trident world, but that does not mean that the UK should do so. We must consider two things: first, our existing expenditure; and, secondly, what happens afterwards. I recently asked the Secretary of State about the cost of running AWE Aldermaston and capital investment in the base. I was astonished to learn that over the past five years, AWE Aldermaston has cost 1.5 billion of the defence budget, of which almost 100 million has been spent on capital investment in the past year. I would be interested to know what that capital investment was. I hope the money was not spent on preparation for, or manufacture of, a new generation of nuclear weapons to succeed Trident. We have been told, and I accept that we were told in good faith, that no decision has been made on a post-Trident world through the refurbishment of Trident or some new nuclear weapons system.
	It is worth thinking for a moment about the costs involved. They are huge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) pointed out. The original cost of Trident was 12.52 billion and the annual running costs are about 1.5 billion. Trident's lifespan was predicted to be 30 years. The Trident refit that is taking place at Devonport docks in Plymouth was estimated in 1997 to cost 650 million, but it is already running at almost 1 billionabout a third more than the original estimate. It is not a cheap system, even with the current refit. A replacement of Trident would cost around 25 billion. There is a great deal else that one could spend such a sum onnot least, it would allow us to meet the UN millennium development goals every year for the next six years. It is important that in the debate we throw all these factors into the equation.
	The wider question is how secure the world is with nuclear weapons or with Trident. If we replace Trident nuclear missiles, we will be running contrary to the rule and expectation of the non-proliferation treaty. Although it puts the five declared nuclear weapons states in a special position, it does not allow them to develop new generations of nuclear weapons while at the same time saying that the signatory nations to the non-proliferation treaty cannot develop their own nuclear weapons. If we do not want proliferation, a good example must be set by the five declared nuclear weapons states. I hope the UK does not develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. I do not believe them to bring security. I believe them to be immoral and dangerous, and to encourage others to develop nuclear weapons.
	The Secretary of State said that there must be a public debate on the matter. We all welcome that. It would be helpful if, in his reply, he could set out the options, the cost of the existing system, the cost of replacement and the legal opinion with respect to the non-proliferation treaty, so that there can be a serious, informed public debate about it. That debate will take place anyway in the public arena. It is extremely important that it also takes place in the Chamber and in the Committees of the House.
	We are debating defence. The world is obviously not a simple or a stable place. We must ask ourselves whether such fantastic levels of expenditure on defence make the world a safer place, or whether we would be better off spending a little more energy addressing issues of inequality, poverty and instability around the world, rather than assuming that there is a military solution to every problem. I say that because I want to see a more peaceful world, as does the entire House, I am sure. The possession or development of nuclear weapons does not bring that about.

Ann Winterton: I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly in this important and wide-ranging debate on defence in the United Kingdom. I begin by paying tribute to the members of the armed services who serve this country so well. We are very proud of them, of the standards that they set and of what they achieve.
	I shall also pay a brief tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who this afternoon made his last appearance at the Dispatch Box. He has given long and distinguished service in the House, and perhaps he will feel happier at laying down the burdens that that has placed upon his shoulders. He will be much missed, but I can assure him that in stepping down, he will rediscover the freedom and independence that Members on the Back Benches are allowed in some small measure from time to time.
	The Minister has made it clear in numerous written answers that the final structure of the Territorial Army will be confirmed by the end of the year. That announcement about the future is vital, because the TA is in dire straitsone might say meltdown. All we have to go on is the announcement made on 16 December last year by the Chief of the General Staff to the Army chain of command on the Future Army Structure ReservesStructural Changes, which will take place around 200708 following the planned amalgamation and disbandment of regular infantry regiments, I presume.
	In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies given by the Minister at Defence questions on Monday to two of my hon. Friends who asked about TA recruitment, I want briefly to pursue the issue. It is all very well stating that reserve forces will carry out certain tasks and specialist activities to supplement the regular forces, but that surely depends on available manpower. It will be interesting to learn the actual size of TA that the MOD is seeking. At present, the TA is 15 per cent. under strength and overall numbers are falling. As has been said, the current requirement for TA personnel is 41,610, but the actual figure is 35,560, which is the lowest since the TA was founded in 1907.
	The Minister asserted on Monday that the fall in TA manning has already been reversed. However, I understand that the number of resignations exceeds the number of people who have passed basic training and are fit for deployment, which is a direct consequence of the Iraq war. For the first six months of the war, resignations stood at an average of 162 people a month. From September 2003 until August this year, the average jumped up to 540 resignations a month. That point was highlighted in The Guardian this weekI hasten to add that I do not read that newspaper regularlyin an article based on parliamentary questions entitled, Civilians who signed up to serve in the TA speak for the first time about why they have handed in their kit for good, which is a matter of great concern for everyone.
	A tremendous physical and financial effort has gone into recruitment, which has fallen by 35 per cent. in the past eight financial years. In 199798, there were 10,400 recruits; in 200405, that figure decreased to 6,900 recruits, with the costs of recruitment doubling. In 200102, expenditure on recruitment was 5 million, increasing to 10.5 million in 200405. Those recruitment figures require further study because from 1 March 2003 to 30 June 2005, some 3,800 people were recruited as infantry TA privates, yet only 1,300 of them completed phases 1 and 2 of basic training, and 1,960 privates left the TA in the same period.
	More than 35 per cent. of the TA have not collected their financial bounty. That figure of 12,010 individuals is, coincidentally, exactly the same as the number of individuals whom the MOD claims are still available for deployment. I respectfully suggest that that might not be true.

Mark Lancaster: On Monday, the Minister said that TA manning levels are 31,680. In my role as an officer in the TA, I am responsible for officer training in the London district. Of the 130 potential officers who have come through in the past year, 60 have already dropped out and only one has passed through Sandhurst in the past 12 months.

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend makes his point very clearly and backs up what I am trying to say.
	Part of the problem is defining the role of the TA nowadays. It was always thought to be a reserve force and never intended to be a continual front-line force. It is difficult for young people at the start of their civilian careers to expect to be called up for 10 months' continual service in a three-year period; and we must not overlook those who are older.
	I regret that the Ministry will not answer the question, which has been posed several times, about how many TA personnel have left after having been deployed. I appreciate the Minister's saying that, where possible, the term of commitment is to be extended from three to five years. At present, howeverespecially in the infantry, where the number of regulars is being cutas soon as a private has completed basic training he will be called up in the next Operation Telic. The Ministry says that 2,000 TA infantry privates were available for Operation Telic 7 and some 1,500 were available for Operation Telic 8. I do not know where it gets those figures from, especially given that the 4th Battalion the Parachute Regiment was not even able to form a company for Operation Telic 7. A third of the numbers were supplied by the Tyne and Tees Regiment and the East and West Riding Regiment. I suspect that, as information on the ground suggests, new recruits finish their basic training and are deployed virtually immediately when the brown envelope drops on their doormat. Is it any wonder that so many leave when they see what is happening?
	We need to consider the effect on the employers of those deployed in the TA. SaBRESupporting Britain's Reservists and Employersprovides an excellent lifeline, especially for employers. Although the number of TA medical personnel who have been deployed since the start of Operation Telic may seem small at 754, most if not all of them are employed in the national health service and need to be replaced in order to continue to provide the services required. The effect on small businesses can be devastating. Although the financial package for replacement of staff is good, it does not replace the expertise and experience of a key individual who is absent for such a long period. Those left behind can cope for a month or twopossibly for up to threebut 10 months is expecting too much.
	Some 1,350 members of the TA have volunteered for a second or subsequent tour. One sometimes wonders why they do not join the regulars. Part of the answer might be that they are far better off financially if they do not do so because they receive their normal civilian wage. A person who is on a salary of 25,000-plus may   be in the same unit as a regular on a salary of 16,000.

James Gray: I want to pick up on a small and technical but important detail. If a member of the Territorial Army volunteers for a second deployment to a theatre of war, he does not have the advantage of the pay and conditions that he gets if he is compulsorily mobilised. That means that people will not go for a second time to Iraq, for example, unless there is some change to their pay and conditions.

Ann Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that.
	One can imagine a tight-knit unit with a medic on a large salary and someone on a much smaller salary. Men and women are aware of what is going on and there is a slight resentment among regulars who are not on the same remuneration package. The Minister said that one cannot tell the difference in the field between regular servicemen and members of the TA. The men on the ground know the differencethere may not be a difference in performance, but they know who is a regular and who is a member of the TA.
	The Ministry must make up its mind about what it expects from the TA, because it may find that it simply cannot attract personnel in sufficient numbers to give the required commitment in future. I want to stress the importance of maintaining the existing network of TA centres. If there are fewer in future and they are located in the larger conurbations, that will inevitably result in fewer recruits. The Ministry and the defence chiefs are sailing close to the wind and must realise that simply throwing money at recruitment is not producing the right results.
	Although I welcome the announcement of the improved package of measures for the reserve forceswe are waiting to hear exactly what they arethe result of current policy is putting the future of the reserve defence forces of the United Kingdom in jeopardy.

John Smith: It is always a privilege to take part in defence debates for the important reason that it gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women in this country and throughout the world who do such an excellent job.
	I had the privilege of accompanying the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) on a visit to RAF Marham yesterday, and I would like to place on record my thanks to Group Captain Bagwell and the team at Marham for showing members of the Select Committee on Defence the superb job that they do and their commitment and professionalism in carrying out duties on our behalf. When we left, every member of the Select Committee felt the same. However, there is a difference between being able to undertake duties with professionalism and commitment and being given duties and responsibilities that people should not have to accept. I intend to discuss that this afternoon.
	I agreed almost entirely with the opening speech from the Government Front Bench. [Interruption.] I said almost entirely. I am a great supporter and extremely proud of the Government's defence policy. Our strategic defence review is one of the best reviews of any military in NATO and much of the rest of the world. The new chapter and White Paper followed as a result of the changing threats worldwide. The White Paper was a courageous document and a rational response to the threats. It called for a radical reorganisation of our assets, people and structures to create a more flexible, agile and responsive force that could have an increasingly further reach, with smaller packages carrying a bigger and better punch.
	That model is emulated in other NATO countries. Last week, as part of the EU presidency, I had the privilege of attending a dinner with leading people in the defence community throughout Europe. I sat next to a person who paid tribute to the British Government's role in restructuring our armed forces. She told me that her countrya leading European countrymodelled its reform proposals on the British strategic defence review. She had been an adviser to the Minister of Defence in her country and had drawn directly on the British review in shifting from a cold war scenario to one that, as the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire said, presents far greater and more invidious threats in many respects. It is much harder to tackle because it is so much less predictable, demanding greater responsibility, better equipment and better force structures.
	However, when I outlined to the same person the Government's proposals for providing depth support for the RAF fast jets as yet another outcome of the review and rationalisation, she listened to me in absolute disbelief. She could not believe that the British Government, who have been taking a leading role throughout NATO in reorganising their armed forces and, just as importantly, the support for their armed forces, as has been mentioned quite a lot today, had now decided to place the depth support for their elite fast jet fleets back in-house with the RAF, after taking it away from the RAF just four years ago, on the sound military grounds that since the end of the cold war there has been no military case whatever for military personnel to carry out the factory maintenance and repair of fast jets. That can be done much more successfully by civilian workers working in a commercial environment, or by outsourcing that work to the private sector, if appropriate safeguards are put in place. Giving that work back to the RAF, however, makes no sense whatever.
	We do not object to reducing the scale of logistical support. Every Member in the Chamber knows that following the force configuration, the over-capacity and huge duplication could not be justified. Also, as I think the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said in response to the statement, nobody disagrees with a rationalisation of logistical support, which was necessary. We agree with collapsing four lines of logistics for our front-line jets to two. In layman's terms, if we think of the example of a car, it is like moving from three at depot, industry and factory level and one on the front line, to a service station on the front line and a garage to take the car to for repairs.
	It is a fundamental mistake, however, to mix the two on a front-line base, as proposed by the Government. It will put unfair pressures on our front-line airmen and women to meet operational targets on a base such as Marham, which we visited yesterday, and to carry out scheduled, planned, long-term maintenance upgrades and deep repairs. If we ask the same people to do the same job with limited resources, the danger is that we will put operational capability at risk. The bottom line is that, when push comes to shove, brave servicemen such as Group Captain Bagwell will meet his operational requirements to defend this nation every time. That is why it was proposed that the two functions should be separated in the first place.
	I note with interest that, once again, our distinguished Defence Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire, expressed dismay that when he questioned the Minister following his statement, and asked what strategy was being adopted, or what plans there were for providing deep support for the joint combat aircraft and the joint strike fighter, the Minister was not able to reply. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire expressed his disappointment because it revealed that there was no principle underlying the Government's strategy of supporting their front-line aircraft. Let us bear in mind the fact that all the scenarios that we proposeor the overwhelming majority of them in terms of security threats and entering battle zonesrequire absolute dependence on the reliability and availability of our fast jets, particularly the Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR9, for many years to come. We must therefore get this right.
	It was revealed not only that there is no principle underlying the Government's strategy, but that there is no strategy. The argument has been that we should centralise the second line of logisticsdepth supporton a military operational basis. Let me tell the House that we are centralising some at Marham with the Tornado and some at Cottesmore with the Harrier, but despite today's announcement we do not know where we are going to centralise the depth support for the joint combat aircraft or the joint strike fighter. In his statement last week on the modernisation of logistics, the Minister failed to say where the Hawk training jets were going, but he did say that half or perhaps more than half of the RAF's rotary wing fleet is rolling back into one centralised unitwith the exception, I believe, of the Merlin and the Puma which are going, quite frankly, God knows where.
	The point that I am making is that there is no rationale running through the policy on depth support. If there were a clear and transparent rationale, many hon. Members would have no difficulty in supporting it. I am afraid that statements that this jet is going forward and that jet is going back, or that this aircraft is going forward and that aircraft is going back, or that this helicopter is going forward and that helicopter is going back, smack of cuts for cuts' sake rather than a rationalisation. As I said, I would have no trouble supporting a proper rationalisation. There is a huge difference between saving money for defence by cutting costs and saving money for the front line by introducing genuine efficiency gains. Quite frankly, this stinks of cutting costs. In my opinion, it is even worse than that, because there is serious danger of undermining front-line capability.
	The House will know that in March 2004 the Harrier was rolled forward to Cottesmore. In a speech in July this year, I explained to the House that it has been a costly mistake. Indeed, the cost of carrying out the work is escalating out of control. It was originally intended to be carried out by military personnel, but they cannot cope with the work, so an increasing number of civiliansalmost 100 at present, employed by BAE Systemsare supporting it.
	I have to apologise, because I told the House in July that it was taking an average of 200 days to turn round a HarrierGR9, if upgraded, or GR7 if notas compared with 100 days under the old depth support arrangements at DARA St. Athan, where civilians carried out the work in a commercial and centralised environment as they should. One of the biggest military aviation hangars in the world had only just been constructed. It opened only earlier this year and had 47 purpose-built bays to provide depth support for the entire fleet of fast jets in the RAF. It was the size of six football pitches and cost 80 millionbut, no, that is not going ahead and it is being broken up.
	I told the House in July, as I said, that it was taking 200 days at Cottesmore compared with 100 days at St. Athan under the older arrangements. In the contract bid for that work, it would have taken 60 days to turn those aircraft round. I was wrong, because it takes 232 days to turn round those aircraftfour times longer than it would have done if the aircraft had remained at St. Athan. That is only a small part of the fleet, yet we are now proposing to put the lion's share and major part of our front-line fleetthe Tornado aircrafton these military operational bases.
	I am deeply concerned about the effect on the future availability of our aircraft. In ministerial replies to questions, I have been told that Harrier availability has increased dramatically since the roll forward to Cottesmore and that turn-round times are quicker. That is not trueand the evidence that shows that is available and has been presented to the Minister. Instead of openly and transparently challenging the evidence, the MOD has shut down the computer logistics information technology system that makes the information available, to ensure that no one finds out either the true cost or the amount of time spent on the work.
	I ask the Government for what must be the third or fourth time to think very carefully about this issue. Even if they are sticking to their principleif it is a principleof rolling forward the Tornado to Marham, for goodness' sake, they should look very carefully at and evaluate the effects of rolling forward the Harrier. We must find ways to retain this capabilitydoing so in-house is one optionthat do not involve a sole monopoly supplier such as BAE Systems. I cannot see how we could incentivise a sole supplier of a service, given that there would be no alternative competitor or in-house provision to turn to in order to reduce costs. I predict that costs will escalate out of control. We must look at other options, such as slowing this process down or retaining, as I said, in-house capability one way or another, be it through the private sector or through the Defence Aviation Repair Agency in St. Athan. We must do so for the future of the British military.
	In the few seconds remaining to me, I finish by saying that I hope that defence training rationalisation will come to St. Athan.

James Gray: The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) and I have three things in common, the first of which is our ability to watch the clock; I greatly admire the tremendous precision with which he did so. Our second thing in common is our less than slavish support for Government defence policy; despite what he said at the outset, he proved to be rather critical of it. Our third common factor is that we are very strong supporters of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I fear that I am something of an anorak on this subject, having completed undergraduate and postgraduate study on it. Most recently, I graduated from the Royal College of Defence Studies, having enjoyed the careful tending of Sir Neil Thorne, to whom we all pay tribute.
	That experience from last year has been combined with two or three other, more recent experiences. I am a visiting parliamentary fellow of St. Antony's College, Oxford, which discusses issues such as those before us. I am also chairman of the all-party group on the Army, and a member of the Court of Assistants of the Honourable Artillery Company, my former Territorial Army regiment. All those experiences have enabled me to put together a number of thoughts in recent months. A debate such as this is an occasion not only to talk about the detailed issues to which Members have referred, but to reflect a little more widely on what we are seeking to do in our defence policy, and how we intend to do it.
	We have reached a very significant point in world history and defence history. We must consider not only the challenges that our defence forces face and the tasks that they must carry out, but the resources that they are given to enable them do so. It used to be easy: it was plain what our defence forces had to do. We had to defeat communism; to remove the Argentines from the Falkland Islands; to sort things out in Sierra Leone. Even as recently as the conflict in Afghanistan, it was perfectly plain that, post-9/11, we had to do something, and sorting out al-Qaeda in Afghanistan seemed like the right thing to do. I have to say, however, that I am one of those who are by no means convinced that we achieved that task. Equally, I was one of few voices in my party who were by no means convinced that we had justification under international law to do what we eventually did in Iraq. Again, I am by no means convinced that we achieved our aims.
	Leaving those issues to one side, the reality is that we no longer have clear tasks, because we do not have such an enemy any more. The enemy of peace in the world today is not a person invading somewhere else; it is not Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. Today's enemy is invisible, diverse and unknown. He is ready to sacrifice his own life in a way that we have never seen before in terrorist activities. It was reasonably easy to defeat the IRA. On pointing a weapon at an IRA soldier's headI use the word soldier looselyhe laid down his weapons. On pointing a weapon at an al-Qaeda terrorist's head, the likelihood is that he will blow himself up, taking a lot of other people with him. That is an enemy very different from any that we have seen before.
	Much fundamental thought needs to be given to how to defeat such a terrorist. Do we do so by shooting him? Can we defeat him through direct, conventional operations? To some degree, of course, we can. If we can shoot Saddam Husseinsorry, I meant to say the terrorist[Interruption.] I should point out, incidentally, in response to a sedentary observation from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that many people would have liked Saddam Hussein to be shot.
	How do we fight terrorism? Terrorism is a many-headed Hydra: taking out a terrorist carries the risk that 10,000 more will be created. Sorting out international terrorism is a much more complicated business than our beloved Prime Minister and the President of the US have led us to believe in recent years. They have tended to say that the war against terrorism is a matter of fighting the bad guys, and that our forces will ride in like the sheriff on his horse and take them out. Not so long ago, I heard Richard Perle saying that people could join the President's posse if they wanted to. The notion is that we are the good guys, and thus entitled to take out the bad guys.
	I, for one, do not believe that defence today is anything like so simple. It is a great deal more complicated, but I still have great faith in my former regiment's mottoArma pacis fulcra. It means, Arms are the Balance of Peace, and I am sure that that is right.
	The cold war demonstrated as much. Our independent nuclear deterrent won the cold war for us. For some 20 years, the Labour party wanted to get rid of it. If that had happened, the Russians and communism would have won. We would not be where we are today if we had done what Labour wanted and disarmed, and the same is true now. We cannot defeat al-Qaeda or international terrorism by laying down our arms, so we need a sensible military deterrence to sort out the terrorist threat.
	How do we deploy our conventional military assets so that they deter terrorists? That is a key question, and we must be careful about how we answer it. The tragedy of the South American person killed in error by the police on the underground is a good demonstration of that. Should we have been using dum-dum bullets against someone who turned out to be perfectly innocent? What weapons should we use to deter terrorist activity?
	I want to contemplate for a moment what we have done in Iraq. Is it right to build up our conventional forces and deploy them as we have in Iraq, given what might happen elsewhere in the world? Next year, we will seek to deploy a second Army group in Afghanistan, which will mean that we have two such groups deployed in the world. That exceeds what was foreseen in the strategic defence review, so what will happen to overstretch? I shudder to think of the consequences in that regard.
	I have watched our armed forces at work over many years, and I know that service personnel will brace up, salute, turn to the right and march off and do whatever we ask of them. The people who talk incessantly about overstretch demean the capabilities and determination of our very professional armed services. There is no question but that they are up to any job they are given.
	However, the more we ask our armed forces to do, the harder the task will be if we do not give them the appropriate resources. Our deployment in Afghanistan is due to be increased next year, but who knows what else might happen around the world. What will happen if there is another Sierra Leone orGod forbid!an increase in violence in Northern Ireland? If anything like that arose, the elastic would be stretched to its maximum.
	In that respect, I am more critical of the Government even than the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). Our Army is close to being the smallest since the battle of Waterloo. A force with 100,000 people or fewer does not deserve the name Army. At such a size, we are talking about a home defence force.
	In that context, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), who spoke with great knowledge and expertise about the Territorial Army. The commanding officer of the Honourable Artillery Company, my own regiment, said only the other day that the Government were using the TA as cheap labour to bridge the gap in their defence budgets. The Government have made deep cuts in the Army and have used the TA to plaster over the gaps, but that cannot go on.
	I have some experience of the TA, and can tell the House that its personnel will accept a deployment of six months or 12 months. However, if the law were to be changed to allow them to be required to accept another compulsory deployment, the boys would not do so. They are professional people, with jobs and families to think about. They are prepared to serve the nation once, but the possibility that they might do so more than once is remote.
	I suspect that the crisis involving recruitment and retention in the TA is worse than it appears, because an awful lot of the people who have come back have not yet handed in their uniforms. They are not necessarily turning up at the drill halls, but are waiting to collect their bounties. If there were a huge crisis that demanded a substantial deployment of the Territorial Army, I suspect that the people would not be there. If that were the case, the regular Army would be left high and dry. The same situation arises in other areas owing to what the Government are doing on procurement and the provision of equipment, and the number of people who are on the ground.
	The strategic defence review did not foresee the situation that we are in, and nor did the Government. They will not tell us in any detail how they would handle a significant increase in military threat throughout the world. They seem to be sitting on their hands and hoping like heck that that does not happen. There are significant signs that suggest that the elastic that is our highly professional armed forces is being stretched to its maximum. If there were a crisisI hope that there will not be onewho knows what would happen to that elastic.

Kevan Jones: I echo the tributes that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) paid to our men and women in the armed forces. We often take them for granted. They make difficult decisions and find themselves in difficult situations, so it is right to start a speech in such a debate by paying tribute to them.
	I welcomed the speech made by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). He is the new Chair of the Defence Committee, to which I have been reappointed for this Parliament. I echo his views about the previous Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). I did not get on with my right hon. Friend on all occasions, but I was thinking the other day that his absence is a little bit like toothacheone misses it when it is gone. He made a great contribution on defence in the House over the years, which has clearly been recognised by many right hon. and hon. Members.
	I want to talk about the importance of the UK defence industry to defence in the UK and the deployments that we ask our men and women to undertake around the world. I shall do that by concentrating on two issues: first, the future rapid effect system; and, secondly, the future shipbuilding strategy for UK yards.
	The international situation these days is setting new challenges for the armed forces. The need for lighter and more manoeuvrable forces is clearly evident. The tasks that we will ask our armed forces to undertake in the future are likely to be smaller in scale than in the past, conducted at short notice, and carried out some distance from the UK. That explains why it is important to develop a medium-weight land capability that could be deployable by air and effective in acute and dangerous situations.
	Few would dispute the fact that it is important that FRES is delivered on time, on budget and up to specification. As General Sir Mike Jackson told the Royal United Services Institute last year:
	It is . . . clear to me that the concept of the Future Rapid Effect System is critical to the British Army's . . . capability.
	No one should doubt the scale of the task that faces the Ministry of Defence in delivering on time and to specification. The new medium-weight armoured vehicle will be totally network enabled and full of computers and new technology. It represents the largest single project that the MOD has undertaken in peacetime. It will be an important piece of kit for the next 20 to 30 years for the British Army. It is thus vital that we have a defined in-service date, but this is where I find that answers given by the MOD, with its usual culture of denial, are a little unclear.
	The generally quoted in-service date for FRES was 2009. In late 2004, the then Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Bach, said that the date would definitely be 2009. He said that
	we think it achievable otherwise we would not say it is.
	In fairness, I realise that that does not mean that the entire fleet of vehicles would be fully operational, because there will be a family of vehicles with different capabilities. In October 2004, in reply to the Defence Committee's procurement report, the MOD said that
	our planning assumption for FRES remains to introduce early variants around the end of the decade.
	However, when I questioned General Sir Mike Jackson in the Defence Committee in January 2005, he said that he doubted that FRES would be available by 2010.
	To try to obtain some answers, I tabled a written question to the Secretary of State. I was grateful but intrigued by the answer from the Minister of State, who said:
	The in-service date will not be fully endorsed until the main investment decision, but our current planning assumption is that the early variants of FRES will be introduced into service early in the next decade, with a phased approach to achieving full operational capability thereafter.[Official Report, 9 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 556W.]
	We have gone from Ministers openly talking about an in-service date of 2009 to a position where the Minister will not be pinned down on what the date will be. That makes me wonder what, if anything in FRES, will be delivered on time.
	The Government's response to the Select Committee report referred to
	planning on the incremental development of an interim medium weight capability, using existing vehicles where appropriate.
	Yet when General Fulton appeared before the Select Committee he said that there was an option. He said that
	there is a very clear choice to be made between what I might call not-FRES and FRES. Not-FRES we could go out into the market today and buy a light armoured vehicle, and there are a number on the market . . . The assessment phase needs to answer for me the question can we have FRES in a timescale acceptable to my end customer or we have got to spend money on not-FRES in the interim?
	That is the challenge that faces the British Army. I am increasingly sceptical about whether FRES will be introduced anywhere near the end of the decade. People ask why that matters. It matters because our existing kit is getting older and there will be a capability gap if FRES or some variant of it does not come on board.
	British industry faces another problemplanning to ensure that we have the capability to produce in the UK the variants of FRES and other armoured vehicles in the future. The current programme of Alvis Vickers, or BAE Systems Land Systems as it is now, shows that there is a real problem. There are gaps in the company's work over the next two or three years. Again, people ask why that matters. It matters because we cannot keep a skilled work force together and assume that we can turn on the tap two or three years later when we want to procure an armoured vehicle. Planning is needed to ensure that industry is taken into consideration.
	I welcomed the appointment of Lord Drayson as the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement. This month, when he appeared before the Select Committee he showed his understanding of industrial processes, and I await his defence industrial strategy with eager anticipation. We need to do two things: first, we must deliver equipment on time and on budget to our armed forces; and, secondly, we need to realise that if we are to maintain a viable and vibrant defence manufacturing industry we must plan our procurement. Clearly the Defence Procurement Agency had an atrocious record on that in the past.
	I want to deal with the shipbuilding strategy. I welcome the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his opening address that 14 billion will be spent on procuring new ships for the Royal Navy over the next 10 years. However, I am sceptical about whether they will actually be built in the UK. There will be a glut of work, with the CVF, the future carrier, and the military afloat reach and sustainabilityMARSprogramme, but there are worrying signs that unless a clear strategy underpins development in the yards we shall not have the capacity to build those ships in the UK. The idea of building our warships abroad, possibly in eastern Europe, would be a complete tragedy.
	There is a notionthere certainly was when the Conservatives were in powerthat shipbuilding is an old smokestack industry. I would challenge anyone who thought that to visit a modern shipyard. Not only do they use cutting-edge technology in fabrication, but electronics and so on. It is far from a smokestack industry. We need a clear strategy to ensure that the industry in this country has the necessary capacity and we should encourage apprenticeships and expertise in those areas. If we fail to do that, I fear that, when we finally come round to procuring ships in the future, we will not have the necessary capacity or skills base, which is vital.In the next 12 months the Government need to lay out that strategy, not just for shipbuilding but for other parts of defence manufacturing. I hope that we do not go down the road of thinking that purchasing our equipment from abroad would be cheaper somehow. Clearly, if work is not forthcoming there will be knock-on social effects on many of those communities throughout country.
	I want to refer to the ongoing saga of the alternative landing ship logistics, which has a lot of credence locally in the north-east, given the involvement of Swan Hunter. I am concerned about that programme. Clearly, extra money is rightly being spent to finish it. I visited Scotstoun yard in Glasgow a couple of weeks ago to see the two BAE Systems vessels being procured. There are serious problems with that programme. We now need a clear audit of what is going wrong and what needs to be put right to get those ships delivered on time.
	I am not here to apportion blame, but some grave questions must be asked about the way in which the winning bid used an off-the-shelf Dutch design. Clearly, unrealistic estimates for the cost of those ships were included. I am also concerned that, as the ships are being delivered, possibly up to 40 variations are being made each week. I understand that Lloyd's Register will not even certificate some of the ships until some of those modifications are put right. Unless that is done, the saga will carry on. Will it cost more for the taxpayer? No doubt, it will, and I wonder why some of those things were not questioned when an off-the-shelf Dutch design was proposed as a cheap alternative by someone at Swan Hunter who may have expertise in the oil industry, but none at all in designing and building a modern warship, even logistics ships such as those in that programme.
	Shipyards must work together, but if we have no commitment to sharing work around the industry yards such as Swan Hunter will face a number of years without work. The way to ensure that that does not happen is to plan the work over the next 10 years. However, I would certainly question whether any work should go to the yard under the current management. I have nothing against the work forceI have the highest regard for the good work that they dobut there are clearly serious problems not just with the way the work is managed, but with whether they can find the investment that is needed for a modern shipyard.
	We should not underestimate the importance of the defence industry in this country, not just in procuring the best equipment that our armed forces need, but in ensuring that we protect this country's skills base. If that is not done, we could become a country of assembly workers for other international arms manufacturers. That would be a tragedy, not just for parts of the north-east, but for many communities throughout the country.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. About six hon. Members still wish to participate in the debate. I calculate that we have about 50 minutes before we must come to the winding-up speeches. If hon. Members will bear that in mind, I am sure that there will be mutual gratitude.

Robert Key: Defence is the first duty of any Government but, at the moment, the defence world seems to be in a period of almost perpetual change and uncertainty. One change is the departure of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), my neighbour in Wiltshire, to whom I pay tribute for his unstinting service to our country. I look forward to him being my neighbour in Wiltshire for many years to come.
	A huge amount of change is going on all around us. There are difficult questions of procurement. There are strategic questions about whether we procure from the EU, the United States or the UK's 400,000 defence work force with their enormous skill. There are great changes afoot at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, for example, with expansion and relocation from Farnborough and Malvern to Porton Down in my constituency. There is the impact on Boscombe Down airfield of the airfield review that we heard about today, and the impact on companies such as Qinetiq, which were mentioned earlier. There are also smaller issues, such as the reconfiguration of the air squadrons. I shall be very sorry to see Southampton university air squadron leave Boscombe Down. There is massive change at Winterbourne Gunner, at the defence nuclear, biological and chemical centre, with its expansion, and at the police nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological centre, also at Winterbourne Gunner. There is concern about the future of Erskine barracks, Wilton, whether it will be relocating and to where. Will it be Solstice park? What about Upavon and Abbey Wood? There is constant change in the world of defence at the moment.
	I will take the advice of the Minister of State and talk to my local education authority about the question of presentations to schools. The tri-service presentation teams are underused. They are superb teams of people and it would be a great opportunity if they were more widely used, perhaps in schools and colleges.
	We have heard today stories of great pride in our armed forces and I have great pride, as do we all, in those who follow the flag, in the civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence, and in the private sector defence contractors and their staffs. Above all, I always remember those who gave their lives or sustained terrible injury in the service of our country. That is why we have all been so proud of the Royal British Legion in the past few weeks, centring on poppy day, on Remembrance Sunday.
	The problems of forces families continuelittle problems that they bring to their Members of Parliament. One matter that came to me again recently, as it did a decade ago, was the problem of service families obtaining commercial credit in shops because their lifestyle leads them to two-year postings, which means that they do not qualify for ordinary hire purchase agreements. I thought that we had knocked that on the head in the last Armed Forces Act, but apparently not. That matter will no doubt come up again. I served on the Committees considering the last two Armed Forces Bills, and I hope very much that I might be able to serve on the forthcoming Bill, which will be extremely important.
	On Tuesday in Westminster abbey, we had the inauguration of the Church of England General Synod. I am a member of the General Synod and it gave me enormous pride to see the forces synodical council represented in Westminster abbey, because it is part of the Church of England's synodical system, and the chaplain general's department is very important to Her Majesty's forces. I was delighted to see the recent announcement of representation for other faiths, including the Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs. But the synodical council is important. I found the summary of the minutes of its last recorded meeting at Amport house on the Ministry of Defence website, but I regret to say that although it was an hilarious account of a synodical meeting, it was dated 22 and 23 April 2002. I hope that it has met more recently than that. Perhaps it will pay more attention to its website in future.
	There is a serious side to my mentioning that because in the Church of England General Synod on Tuesday, the Bishop of Southwark initiated a debate entitled Facing the Challenge of Terrorism, on which the House of Bishops has produced a report, and part of his motion read:
	That this Synod . . . urge all political parties, in considering draft legislation to heed the clear warnings from history about the progressive erosion of fundamental rights in relation to habeas corpus, free speech and religious liberty.
	We heard during that debate moving accounts from former servicemen and civilians on various aspects, including torture. The Archbishop of Canterbury made a strong intervention, in which he said:
	Torture is an invasion of the dignity of the human person
	and urged us as a nation always to look for the moral high ground. We heard from a former distinguished soldier, who argued that, whenever the British were tempted to use torture or internment, we lost the moral high ground. He believed that we let ourselves down many years ago in Cyprus and should have learned from our experience of internment in Northern Ireland before considering locking up people without charge for the famous 90 days. He described Guantanamo Bay as a concentration camp. There was little sympathy in the Church of England General Synod for 90-day detainment without charge and less sympathy still for the religious hatred legislation.
	We need to remember in these defence debates that the expectation of many of our citizens is that the Government will take the moral high ground in controlling carefully, for example, our arms exports, especially considering the worldwide trade in small arms. We can do precious little about that. There are issues of extraterritoriality that are difficult to address, but we should do what we can and we will never regret sticking to the moral high ground.
	I congratulate the Army in particular on the way in which it looks after its training estate. It is a remarkable fact that the training estate, which covers about 125,000 hectares, is some of the best managed land in the country. Relations between the Army and civilian population are crucial. I particularly commend the work of Headquarters Army Training Estate at Westdown camp on Salisbury plain, which goes to considerable lengths to ensure that all the parish councils are told exactly what is happening. In the excellent monthly newsletter that is sent to all the parishes and to me, there are accounts of when training in live firing and artillery firing will take place in Salisbury plain west, north and east, when there will be late firing, non-firing days, air activities, helicopter night flying, aircraft trials and parachuting. I always love the monthly conservation report. This month, it includes a welcome to Rachel Crees, who works as an environmental adviser for Defence Estates. She describes touchingly how the plain is one of the most amazing landscapes in the British Isles, and it is.
	Another aspect of that work has been the extraordinary lengths to which the military have gone with the European Union life project on Salisbury plain, which ended in September. That was a 2 million scheme to look after the extensive chalk grasslands, some of the most precious in Europe. They would not be precious if it were not for the presence of the British Army for 100 years, which has kept the landscapes, flora and fauna in good order. Therefore, I congratulate all those who look after the Army lands in estates the length and breadth of the land.
	I turn to a first-order issue. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) reminded us about the Deepcut experience and how secretive and unwilling the MOD is to release information. On 18 October 2003, while he was addressing the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum, the then United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, warned that
	no threat is more serious to aviation
	than man-portable air defence systems. They are easy to use, readily available on the black market and pose an imminent and acute threat to military aircraft and civil airlines.
	There is a huge issue of principle between the British approach to secrecy and the American approach. The United States Department of Homeland Security produces an enormous amount of material, all available on the web. It tells people exactly what the United States is doing about MANPADS, counter-MANPADS operations and what the priorities are. It gives examples of commercial responses, including from BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman. It believes that those details point out to anyone of ill intent that the United States is ahead of the game. It gives confidence to the American people and acts as a deterrent by making plain what the US Government are doing about that threat. We face real problems with MANPADS. Their proliferation is a problem, with at least 500,000 around the world. They are lethal, highly portable, concealable and cheapsome are only $500. They are easy to use, so airport perimeter security needs to be improved. Different air traffic procedures are needed, such as spiral descents. I have been in one of those and it is not something that I would like to do every day. Technical countermeasures are also available, such as infrared decoy flares, direct infrared energy and missile warning systems.
	A huge effort has been made towards non-proliferation and the Government have played their part. The effort has included the Wassenaar arrangements in January 2004, the G8 action plan agreed on 2 June 2003 at Evian, the Bangkok declaration in 2003 and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe conference in July 2003. Tracing discussion of those issues in Hansard in both Houses has been an interesting experience. The trail goes cold after 1 March this year, when there was a question tabled in the other place. Two years ago, the Science and Technology Committee produced a report on the scientific response to terrorism. It came at a time when a lot else was happening and did not receive much of the spotlight.
	I was a member of the Committee at the time and we visited appropriate organisations in the United States, from the White House to the National Institutes of Health, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. The message we got wherever we wentmilitary or civilian, medical or scientificwas that the more people are told, the better they are defended and the better the deterrent effect. It is time that our Government started to place more trust in the British people. The effect on those who wish to harm us would be very positive. It would mean a tremendous change in the whole tone of secrecy in this country and I invite Ministers to consider that in partnership with other Government Departments. Part of our trouble is that the lead Department is the Home Office, which has to co-ordinate our efforts. I would not wish to go as far as the United States and set up a separate Department, but I do wish to see a Minister for homeland defence.
	The greatest strength of our democratic system is that soaring way above party politics must be leadership by democratically elected Governments. We have government by consent, which confers moral authority on the Government and involves trust between the Government and the governed. In these days of raised security thresholds, our Government must change the habit of centuries. The Government believe that it is necessary progressively to erode our fundamental rights in respect of habeas corpus, free speech and religious liberty. If we agree to lend them some of our personal freedom for the common good, the Government will have to trust the people.

Bob Russell: I will respect your request for brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and ditch two thirds of my speech so that others may speak. It is a great honour to represent the garrison town of Colchester and I pay tribute to those troops from the Colchester garrison on deployment to Iraq and those who will go to Afghanistan in the near future.
	I thank the Government for concluding that Colchester should be a super-garrison and for the massive investment in the new garrison. Although I am no fan of the private finance initiative, it is the only game in town and I welcome the spending. However, the problem with the new barracks is that there will be insufficient accommodation for all the soldiers who will be based there.
	We have heard about recruitment today, but I shall leave that topic to others. Retention is of equal importance. I ask officials to consider the residential accommodation, including married and family quarters, in Colchester and throughout the country, and the consequences of the privatisation by the Conservative Government: the sell-off to Annington Homes. Are the Government satisfied that the efforts to reach the decent homes standard, or the MOD equivalent, are proceeding with sufficient speed? The information that I am getting suggests that there is a lot to be done, and the time scale is such that families are having to put up with conditions that are not conducive to people remaining in the Army.
	Another concern is schools, which are technically part of the local education authority and are not funded by the MOD. That said, the MOD has an interest and a role. In June 2003, the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, now the Home Secretary, visited Colchester and told the Army schools that they would get more money. I followed that up with written questions and the then Minister for School Standards, who has since been promoted, said that there would be no extra Government money for the Army schools. He said:
	There is no need for specific or additional funding from central Government for such schools.[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 558W.]
	That is not the considered view of those dealing with children from Army families who face the turbulence of their father, and sometimes their mother, leaving the scene, perhaps for months at a time. I ask the Under-Secretary and the MOD to see what they can do to assist with the education provision, particularly as the Home Secretary promised additional resources.
	A previous speaker mentioned the difficulties faced by non-British citizens in the British Army who wish to become British citizens. A separate issue is those non- British citizens who are required by the Home Office to return to their country of origin when their leave to remain in the UK has expired. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary because I had a useful meeting with him last week and hope that those two difficulties will be resolved in the not-too-distant future.
	I endorse all the points made about the important role played by the Territorial Army in the life of the British Army today, both at home and overseas. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that there will soon be a statement about the future Army structure? Is he satisfied that if, as I believe, it is to result in a greater Territorial Army presence in many parts of the country, not least in the garrison town of Colchester, the current TA accommodation in my constituency is sufficient for the growth that I believe will be proposed and which will be warmly welcomed?

Mark Pritchard: I join colleagues and hon. Members in paying tribute to Her Majesty's armed forces around the world and here in the UK, and to civilian contractors who work for the Ministry of Defence.
	I pay tribute, too, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has served on the Front Bench with distinction for many years, and to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), who gave an excellent assessment of the Government's disjointed defence policy, and was very brave to do so. I hope that his constituents will take note of his words.
	I would like to take the House on a journey to Shropshire, a fine county. As I said in my maiden speech, Shropshire has a long, proud tradition of service in Her Majesty's armed forces, both on the front line and in the defence supply chain. We have the Royal Air Force at RAF Cosford, and we have the Defence Logistics Organisation, the Army Base Repair Organisation and the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency at Donnington. Since the general electionperhaps it is not a coincidence480 job losses have been announced at the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency at Donnington. Only last week, Ministers announced a further 628 job losses, which will impact on my constituency. So there have been more than 1,000 job losses in six months.
	I am worried about the defence training review, and I have expressed my concerns to the Under-Secretary outside the Chamber. I repeat those concerns today. I hope that that review will be objective and fair, and that there will be a level playing field for the people of Shropshire, the aerospace industry and the military in the west midlands. I hope that the Minister will either confirm or deny that the Welsh Development Agency and Welsh taxpayers' money is being used to promote St. Athan in Wales over Shropshire, which is not using taxpayers' money. It is unable to use such funds through the regional development agency to promote RAF Cosford as a site for the future defence training requirements of Her Majesty's armed forces.
	Will the Government reconsider their decision to close the Army Base Repair Organisation at Donnington? I object to the decision not because it is a Labour policy, but because it is a flawed policy with a weak and thin business case. Like the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan, I believe that if a sound, rational business case on cuts had been put before the House both last week and today, hon. Members on both sides of the House could perhaps have supported the Government. However, we seem to have cuts for cuts' sake, and as I said in an intervention, much of that is meant to release estates and assets, thus realising value from large property holdings. That money will probably not be re-invested in the back office or in front-line military capability. Who knows, perhaps it will end up going to the failing Child Support Agency or another failing Government agency or quango. No business case has been made for the cuts, and nothing that Ministers have said can reassure my constituents or me that any savings from the reconfiguration of the armed forces will assist national security or the effectiveness and efficiency of Her Majesty's armed forces. Nor will they be of wider benefit to my constituents.
	A charity dealing with combat stress is based in Newport in my constituency. Many soldiers, airmen and naval personnel who served in the first Gulf war have suffered from post-traumatic stress. If not intercepted and dealt with, after 12 months the condition turns into post-traumatic stress disorder. Will the Government commit more resources to tackle that serious problem? My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)I, too, hope they name a ship after Hampshire and, indeed, after Shropshire

Robert Key: And Wiltshire.

Mark Pritchard: Wiltshire can wait for now. My right hon. Friend for North-East Hampshire was quite right to say that the way in which we treat our armed forces and approach their welfare impacts on recruitment. The Ministry of Defence should therefore put far more resource into the mental welfare of our armed forces.
	As others wish to speak, I shall make one final point. The Government, paradoxically, seem to have a doctrine of privatising virtually everything that moves in the armed services. That is worrying. If there were a business case, as I said, that would be fair enough. If it were in the national interest, I would agree. A satisfactory case has not been made that the policy of privatisation will improve our national security or our armed services in aggression or in peacekeeping, and there is increased demand on them to fulfil our international aid obligations. Unless a clearer case can be made by the Government, I cannot support them.
	My constituents are extremely disappointed. Only a few weeks ago the Minister for the Armed Forces came to my constituency and said that Donnington had an optimistic future. Of course, that was before the election. After the election, we get the job loss announcements. It is a scandal. That is why I have asked the Defence Committee to initiate an inquiry. The closure of the Army Base Repair Organisation, the potential closure of the Equipment Support Procurement and Provision Agency in the constituency of the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) with the potential loss of 550 jobs, the loss of jobs at the Defence Logistics Organisation in Donnington and the potential impact on RAF Cosford under the defence training review will leave a huge hole in the side of Shropshire and in the entire west midlands. I ask the Government to reconsider their commitment to Shropshire. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond candidly and, as other hon. Members have said, transparently.

David Davies: It is my great privilege to represent the men and women of the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers in the town of Monmouth. We can sleep a little better in our beds knowing that those men and women will go out and do battle on our behalf, as they have been doing. The regiment has distinguished itself since 1539, most recently in Iraq in Operation Telic. I was honoured to be invited to breakfast with them on the morning of their departure for Iraq, and I was very impressed with the level of commitment that those young men and women showed as they went off.
	Although we have such fine men and women who are willing to serve our country, we are treating them in a monstrously unjust fashion. We are in the midst of a series of prosecutions that have been brought against soldiers serving in Iraq. Nobody in the Chamber or outside could support any indication of brutal treatment on the part of our Army, but some of the cases have clearly been brought on the basis of evidence which one judge described as weak and vague. That is not good enough.
	Something similar is happening in Northern Ireland. Yesterday at Prime Minister's Question Time, it was telling that although the Prime Minister waxed eloquent about how proud he was of our troops in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Iraq, and rightly so, he failed to mention Northern Ireland. For the past 30 years, the men and women of our armed forces have faced incredible danger in Northern Ireland. They went out there to protect civilians, Protestant and Catholic alike, and they did so against an enemy who wore no uniform, who struck without warning and whose favoured method of attack was to blow up innocent civilians with bombs.
	It is possible that the reticence of our Prime Minister stems from the fact that his Government are announcing a policy that seems to amount to little more than a Get out of Jail Free card for IRA terrorists. That would be bad enough, but what makes matters worse is that at the same time as we grant a pardon to IRA terrorists, we are setting up an inquiry to examine the actions of every soldier who served in Northern Ireland. That is a disgrace and an insult to the 760 or so men and women who lost their lives serving in the Province and doing an extremely difficult job. When we asked the Leader of the House about the matter last week, he said that one sometimes had to make difficult decisions. There is absolutely nothing difficult about appeasing terror. The difficult decision is to stand up to terrorists, and I am glad to say that many Ministers have done so over the past few years.
	I am proud to have done my bit in a very small wayI served in the Territorial Armybut Salisbury plain was the nearest that I got to a battlefield. Some Conservative Members have been on a battlefield, and I cannot imagine what it is like. If the bullets, bombs and bodies were all around me, the last thing that I would want to think about as I was defending myself would be the prospect of being dragged in front of the courts by the very people who had given me a gun and a uniform and put me into a dangerous situation. I would not appreciate the It's not me guv attitude of those Ministers who have tried to make out that the matter has nothing to do with them.
	I am proud to have played a small part in our armed forces, and I am very proud of what they have done, but I am utterly ashamed of how they are being treated. It is high time that the Government started to think about the loyalty, duty and commitment that our armed forces have always given to the nation, and began returning it.

Philip Hollobone: I, too, had a brief career in the Territorial Army, serving from 1984 to 1993 in the Oxford university Officer Training Corps, the Honourable Artillery Company and other regiments. My constituents would not want this debate to pass without my making a small contribution to emphasise their concern about the degree of overstretch in the British armed forces, which has reached intolerable levels and is placing an intolerable strain on those who serve our country.
	I pay tribute to the local cadet forces in my constituency, who do a marvellous job training young people in the ways of the Army, Navy and Air Force. At the other end of the scale, I pay tribute to those former soldiers, sailors and airmen who now serve their local communities through the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association and other organisations.
	We currently face a global threat that we have never faced before, and I find it incredible that numbers are at their lowest ever level in the TA's 98-year history. The TA represents the most cost-effective way to rebuild our armed forces, because by and large one does not need to house and accommodate those who serve in the TA. One also gets far more bang for one's buck with the TA, because most of the time that members spend training with the TA is spent on exercise. Rather than having the lowest ever numbers in the TA, the Government should introduce proposals to secure the greatest ever numbers in the TA, because it would be the most cost-effective way to deliver the defence needs of our nation.
	The proudest moment of my so far brief time as a Member of this House was to lay wreaths on behalf of local residents at the Remembrance day services in Desborough, Rothwell and Kettering last weekend. It was a great honour and brought home to me the fact that all the names of those local residents who, sadly, are listed on those war memorials are evidence that if this House gets its defence policy wrong, far too many of our citizens end up paying the ultimate price.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). This is the first time that some of us who have worn uniform have been able to discuss defence in general terms in this House, and I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have participated for praising the armed forces appropriately.
	It is interesting to note that our military forces are the last corner of Britain that new Labour has found it hard to change. If one goes into any barracks, sergeants' mess or officers' mess, one will see the same levels of discipline and commitment and the same standard of training as one would have found more than 100 years ago. One would probably also find the same numbers of tattoos in the soldiers barracks and the same war stories being told in the sergeants' quarters, and as many labradors in the officers' mess.
	It is ironic how well something can work when a Government leave it alone. The forces have been able to maintain a collective discipline and responsibility that has resisted political upheavals. All Governments should be grateful for that. The democracy that we enjoy today is thanks to the military of yesterday and the continuing capability and commitment of the forces today. That is why we are able to sit on the world's top table and to have an important place in NATO, the G8, the United Nations and the Commonwealth. The commitment that is shown by our armed forces is not necessarily matched by that shown by the Government. We are serving in more than 40 operations in more than 20 countries, but our forces are deeply overstretched, woefully undermanned and dangerously ill-equippedat a time when, as many hon. Members have pointed out, we are living in an increasingly dangerous world. The result is low morale and a failure to meet recruitment targets.
	There is much that the Government can do, including on recruitment. Recruitment is harder today as a result of falling birth rates, more people going into further education, and people's lack of direct exposure to the armed forces, whether in a military family or by seeing people in uniform. Today's iPod generation, as they are being called, have very different expectations from those of previous generations. The solution is to expose people to the military environment at a much earlier age.
	I pay tribute to the combined cadet force and the sea cadets, among others, which are important sources of recruitment. I recently visited the sea cadets in Bournemouth, and unfortunately found that they are woefully underfunded and looking for a new location in which to house themselves. Yet they provide huge opportunities for people from deprived backgrounds and eventually help in recruiting people into the armed forces. As we heard, the university air squadron provides 56 per cent. of our pilots. If we remove their ability to train in aeroplanes until they go to Cranwell, we are again denying ourselves a huge and important source of potential officers. I would not have joined the Army had I not gone through the officer training corps at university.
	It is astonishing that at a time of increased threats and more commitments, famous battalions are losing their names. We are losing four battalions outright, and at the stroke of a pen 19 regiments are to go. The Royal Gloucester, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment is to merge with the Devon and Dorset Regiment, which is to merge with the Light Infantry. I understand, although the Minister is yet to make the announcement, that they are all to be merged with my own regiment, the Royal Green Jackets, to form five rifle regiments. As for the loss of the Parachute Battalion, which is the biggest feeder into the special forces, I do not understand the logic of that at all.
	Many tributes have been paid to the Territorial Army, which is at its lowest level in terms of numbers since 1907. It is unacceptable that it should have about 41,000 personnel but in fact has only 35,000, yet the Government seem content to do little about it.
	As if cutting manpower were not enough, the real scandal concerns equipment. This is where it is interesting to have been a soldier and now to be in this House and able to look at how much is being spent and whether it is being spent wisely. We are talking about basic kitthe basic requirements that enable the soldier, sailor or pilot to do their job.
	The Eurofighter is 1.5 billion over budget and 16 months late. It is supposed to be replacing the Jaguar and the Tornado, but its introduction is slipping again and againeven though we are about to get rid of the Jaguar fleet in its entirety. The tale of the Sea Harrier jump jet is equally sad. It is supposed to be replaced by the joint strike fighter, but I am worried about that, especially as the Americans are now saying that they are going to make budget cuts. Can the Minister clarify what will happen if such budget cuts threaten the entire project?
	We do not appear to have a timetabled strategy for dealing with our aeroplanes. Even worse, we have problems with the aircraft carrier. The wranglings over the bid were appalling and we are now not even sure of the entry date. There is a litany of problems with other equipment, including the Apache helicopter, which was brought to the United Kingdom in 2001. We lack trained pilots and the helicopters were not declared operational until 2004. The aircraft weapons did not work and pilots could not communicate with ground troops. It was also 4 billion over budget.
	The same applied to the Chinook helicopters. Cockpit avionics prevented them from flying apart in cloudless skies. Those helicopters were 260 million over budget. Seventy Navy Lynx helicopters were grounded because of long-running safety problems. There were also problems with Tornado bombers, which cost 7 million each. Serious computer glitches occurred when they were introduced. When the C-130J transport planesthe replacement for the ageing Hercules systemwere brought in, they were not operational. The Parachute Regiment could not even jump out of the back.

Adam Afriyie: Was my hon. Friend also concerned about the equipment in use on the ground, such as Clansman radios, during the Iraq and Bosnian conflicts?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Clansman radio system was introduced in the 1970s and we are still using it today. We must be the only large-scale western Army that uses a non-encrypted radio system. Only now are the Royal Marines replacing it with Bowman radios.

Mark Pritchard: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Bowman radio does not fit into Land Rovers and that they currently have to be put on to trailers behind the vehicles so that they can be taken on operations?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is an indictment of the project. I learned from going out with the Marines recently that, on a weekend exercise, they need to take approximately 32 batteries to keep the radios going. Clearly, many questions need to be asked about the project, especially since it has taken 30 years to devise a replacement for the Clansman system. Of course, that was supposed to be solved by the smart acquisition systema new process for dealing with procurement. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) commented earlier, perhaps from a sedentary position, rather than being faster, cheaper and better, it was slower, dearer and worserI believe that those were his words. It is time to take our military needs seriously and invest properly in the equipment.
	I should like to consider many other issues, which have already been raised, and with which the Government need to deal. They include closing RAF bases, the duplicity of the relationship between NATO and the EU, and the standard of NATO training as we go for the first time in Afghanistan from a peacekeeping to a war-fighting role. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) also mentioned the nuclear deterrent.
	Much more needs to be debated. We had the biggest shake-up in July 2004, when we needed more forces, yet the Government reduced our strength. The Government are keen to praise our armed forces but not fully to finance them. They are keen to commit them to battle but not properly to equip them. It is a good job that we focus our energies in most of our operations on hearts and minds. If we had to do it any other way, we would not have the equipment. Every soldier, sailor and airman has the right to ask whether money is being well spent by the Government. I do not believe that the Government's words are matched by their actions. We are rightly proud of our armed forces, but we should be less proud of the Government's record.

Andrew Robathan: Defence in the United Kingdom is a fairly topical subject given the bombings in July, terrorism in the UK and so on, so one has to ask why the Labour Benches are so empty. Why are so few Labour Members of Parliament interested in the subject? That is in contrast to Conservative Membersthe best part of a dozen Conservative Back Benchers are presentyet only a Parliamentary Private Secretary and one solitary Labour Back Bencher are here. Not one new Member of Parliament in the Labour party has participated in the debate. The five Labour Members who spoke were highly or pretty critical of the Government. It must be lonely for the Under-Secretary on Treasury Bench; the bluster from the Secretary of State and the Minister of State is no substitute for good defence policy.I want to pay tribute to the excellent speech made by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has given long service to our party, this Parliament and the country over a number of years.
	A great many Membersthe hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), for Telford (David Wright), for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)raised the question of a full-scale debate and consultation on the future of the nuclear deterrent. We know, because the Government have told us, that a decision will be made in this Parliament about a replacement for Trident. The Government should, as the Conservatives did in the 1970s when Trident was being discussed, publish papers stating the facts and the arguments for and against, so that we can have an informed debate.
	The hon. Member for Telford and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire both spoke of the increasing detachment of the armed forces from local communities. That has an impact on recruitment, about which many Members have spoken, so I again question the breaking of local links through the provision of mega-regiments rather than regiments with local ties such as county regiments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) spoke at length about falling recruitment and retention in the Territorial Army. In a stunning indictment of recent Government policy, she described the TA as being in jeopardy. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) added to that from his great experience of the TA. He made a devastating attack on the Government, comparing the armed forces with an elastic band stretched to breaking point.
	I am sorry to praise the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), because I know that he will not appreciate it, but he was again a fierce critic of decisions in relation to DARA. He described cuts for cuts' sake and said that the decisions stink of cutting costs. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), a member of the Defence Committee, spoke with great authority on FRES and other procurement problemshardly a tremendous endorsement of Government policy.
	As for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), I, too, liked the conservation part of the report in relation to training errors. He was the only person really to congratulate the Governmenton MOD policy on looking after Salisbury plain. As a young man lying on Salisbury plain in the middle of the night, I remember watching badgers through a night sight, and it was great fun[Interruption.] Badger watching has a different meaning in the Conservative party than in the Labour party. He then criticised the Government over the failure to address the threat of MANPADS and the failure to trust the people.
	The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) again criticised the Government over the education of forces children and about the TA. In particular, he asked the interesting question: when will we have the statement on the future Army structure?
	My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) spoke up for Shropshire and discussed Combat Stress, an excellent charity with which I have had dealings. He spoke of the Government letting down his constituents at Donnington and about national security. He spoke without notes, which is very impressive, and I can tell that he has been taking lessons from my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who always speaks without notes, too.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth spoke with great passion, and extremely well, about his TA experience, and particularly about the Government betraying soldiers in both Northern Ireland and Iraq. My hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) spoke from their different military experiences. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East spoke particularly about difficulties of recruitment, procurement failures, Government cuts and policy failures.
	All in all, this has not been a great day to sit on the Treasury Bench

John Reid: It has been an excellent day.

Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that it has been an excellent day; he has not been here for very long.
	What concerns me more than anything elseit also concerns the armed forcesis the attitude of the Labour Government to their loyal soldiers, sailors and airmen. We should not be too surprised at that attitude. We heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attitude to spending money on the armed forces. I want to give the House two examples that illustrate, I regret to say, the contempt in which some members of the Government and the Labour party hold the armed forces. I do not wish to be nice to the Secretary of State, but I exempt him from these criticisms as I know that they do not apply to him. I believe that they do not apply to his Ministers either, although I have not yet heard their views in the same detail as I have heard his. I believe that the Secretary of State is a great friend of the armed forces and it is a pity that he has to implement the cuts that were announced before he took his post.
	While serving as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during Christmas 1999, Peter Mandelsonas I understand it, a pretty close confidant of the Prime Ministerreferred to members of the Household Division as chinless wonders. At the time, three of the five footguards battalions were on operations in Northern Ireland. I was in a footguards battalion and served in Northern Ireland. If I thought that Uncle Peter, as he is apparently called in the Prime Minister's household, were no longer welcome in No. 10, I would be happier, but I suspect that he remains a close friend and confidant. More recently in 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister insulted our armed forces by saying, All soldiers are boneheads. That rather contrasts with what the Minister of State said about how much he respected our forces. It was an unworthy comment, but I suggest that it is revealing of how many in the Labour party's hierarchy view the armed forces.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Secretary of State mentioned several of the real problems that are dogging the armed forces, including declining recruitment and retention, notwithstanding the fact that, as I understand it, 7 per cent. of the Army is now recruited outside the UK from the Commonwealth. My right hon. and learned Friend and several other hon. Friends referred to the increasing haemorrhage of soldiers from the Territorial Army. Until the present Government came to office, such soldiers had never been used on operations outside general war to the extent that they have been in Iraq.
	I would like to highlight other issues that are making the Army, and the armed forces in general, deeply suspicious of the Government. As I said on Monday, I fear that they are undermining the loyalty and trust that should exist both ways between our armed forces personnel and their political commanders. When he sums up, will the Minister comment on the following extract from an article in Monday's The Daily Telegraph? I know that he probably does not read that newspaper, but if it were a quote from The Guardian[Interruption.] I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State reads The Daily Telegraph. The article states:
	A week after the trial ended, Brig. Robert Aitken, the director of Army personnel strategy and answerable directly to Gen. Jackson, wrote to selected commanders.
	'How did our officers perform?', he asked. 'Was abuse of Iraqi civilians widespread?'
	The brigadier said he was not 'conducting a witch-hunt' but added: 'I do need some evidence.'
	In a reference to press reports, he wrote: 'The media at the moment is giving our military discipline system a bit of a hammering and is also asking . . . whether our officers behaved to the highest standards.'
	I do not know him andI hasten to add for the Secretary of State's benefitI am not criticising him one way or the other, but we require an answer about whether that is true. Was there a policy of investigating officers to get them to face a court martial? I have already raised earlier today the question of the Attorney-General's political involvement in decisions. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that the Government did not encourage that policy.
	As we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, these courts martial are harming the morale of people who, whether they be soldiers or their commanders, are operating in incredibly difficult circumstances. I can assure the House that all soldiers understand that if they wilfully abuse Iraqis or others, or if they wilfully misbehave or commit criminal acts, they should expect to be punished. I hope, however, that everyone understands that sitting in a nice office in Whitehall or, indeed, in the Chamber of the House of Commons and talking about these matters is very different from being on the streets of Iraq, where temperatures may be as high as 58oC and troops may be wearing heavy body armour, sweating like the proverbial, knowing that some people around them have weapons and are trying to kill them.
	My second point leads on directly from that and relates to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth mentioned. Will the Minister tell me what representations he has received from senior officers about that shameful Bill? Can he confirm that it is the case that British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland, who were obeying orders from senior officers directed by the Government at the time, may be prosecuted under the Bill on exactly the same conditions as the terrorists they were trying to deter? Would the soldiers and SAS personnel involved in the Loughgall incident in 1987 be caught by this Bill? The Minister will recall that the European Court of Justiceit might have been the European Court of Human Rights; he will put me rightfound that the terrorists involved in that incident were unlawfully killed, and that as a result, compensation was paid to their relations.
	I would be very grateful if the Minister commented on those issues. I can assure him that soldiers will not wish to engage the enemythe primary purpose of infantrymen and most other soldiersif they are likely to face prosecution. It cannot be right to treat public servants acting under orders in the same way as terrorists committing crimes in this country. These are the issues that are harming the armed forces' long-term morale. As I said, I do not believe that the Secretary of State is party to them, so let him stand up and say what he thinks about them. It is important that he do so.
	Many other issues have been raised and I shall not cover them in detail, but the cut in the number of infantry battalions as part of the Army restructuring is, to put it mildly, perverse, coming as it does when the Army is so busy around the world. It cannot make sense to reduce the number of infantry battalions by four. Perhaps the Minister will tell us where the troops for Afghanistan will come from, because it is not immediately apparent. In view of the question from the hon. Member for Colchester, he might also tell us when the disbandments and reorganisation will take place. I understand that they have been put off because our troops are so busy. On infantry reorganisation, is the Minister absolutely sure that ending the arms plot will make the infantry operate better and be more usable?
	Has the Minister considered the following important point, which several soldiers have raised with me? Currently, our battalions have experience in depth. They contain people who have served in armoured infantry in Germany and Iraq, and who have done basic foot-soldiering and peacekeeping in Northern Ireland. Such people have the gamut of experience, but given the direction in which this reorganisation is going, we risk taking away that depth of experience and the military expertise that we currently enjoy. My concern is that we will get a less flexible, less usable infantry under this reorganisation.
	I come briefly to the Royal Navy. In discussing how the Government have been treating our armed forces, it needs to be pointed out that we are reducing the frigate and destroyer fleet from 32 to 25. In fact, in a couple of years' time there will be even fewer. Some ships have yet to come into fleet service. This is a dire situation. The Chief of the Naval Staff and First Sea Lord, Sir Alan West, said that he believes that 30 is the minimum number that we can make do with.
	In many ways, today is a rather sad day. This debate has been largely interesting and well attendedcertainly by Conservative Members, if not by Labour Membersbut it has raised more questions than it has answered. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of them when he replies.

Don Touhig: This has been an important and valuable debate, and every Member's contribution has helped in that regard. I apologise at the outset for the absence of the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence. As he advised the Opposition parties, he has had to leave London.
	As a force for good across the world, our armed forces are second to none. Our service personnel do a tremendous job in often unimaginable circumstances and they deserve the very best support that we can give them. My agendamy mission as a Minister in the Ministry of Defenceis simple. It is to demonstrate to the whole defence family that we value them: our cadets, reserves and serving personnel, and their families, and our veterans.
	This year more than ever we have shown how we value the contribution made by those who defended our freedoms in the darkest days of the previous century. Our men and women become veterans the moment that they leave the armed forces, and I believe that it is very important to remind the public of what they have done for us, while at the same time making sure that they know that we are there to give help, advice and support for the rest of their lives.
	I am delighted that the armed forces veterans badge has been so well received, and we are very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to announce that eligibility is being extended to cover those who served between the wars and up to 1954.
	I am also pleased that the Ministry of Defence makes a significant contribution to the Government's youth agenda. I should like to pay personal tribute to all the adult volunteers who give so much of their time to the cadet forces. It is a direct result of their efforts that the cadet movement is one of Britain's largest youth organisations with a membership in excess of 130,000.
	For the commitment and personal sacrifices that our service people make, they deserve the confidence and peace of mind that comes from knowing that their families are cared for, particularly when they are away on operations. Members of the armed forces draw heavily on the support that they get from their families, supporters and loved ones. There is no question in my mind that we must continue to deliver practical improvements to the things that make people feel good about the extra mile that we often ask them to go.
	They expectand I agree with themthat we should and will deliver good-quality accommodation, a fair allowances package and a robust and responsive welfare network. Over the past three financial years, we have upgraded 5,452 married quarters, at a cost of 120 million. Over the next four years, we intend to upgrade a further 3,300. I pay tribute to the service families associations for the full part that they play in helping us to devise our policies.
	It is appropriate that I say something about the reserves and the regular forces together, because together is exactly how they serve in our modern forces. On the numbers in the reserves, we have witnessed Opposition Members shed a quantity of crocodile tears[Interruption.] We should not forget that, in their years in power, they cut the reserve forces by 20,000. They do not like to be reminded, but there is an old saying, By their actions ye shall know them.
	Our reserves play a vital role in the success of operations. The strategic defence review envisaged more capable reserves, more closely integrated with the regular forces. I also pay tribute to the employers who give reserves time to serve. That is of tremendous value and the country owes them a great debt.
	In the past few days, and in this debate, we have heard a great deal from Opposition Members about the military justice system. The armed forces Bill will be presented to Parliament later this month, with a Second Reading possible in December. It will give us an opportunity to streamline and modernise our system of military justice and I suspect that it will provoke much discussion in this House.
	In this debate, as in others, a great deal of outrage has been generated by some Opposition Members. They produce a tremendous amount of heat but not a lot of light on this subject. Our armed forces are the very first to say that they should act within the law. Where there are questions about the conduct of individuals, those individuals should be properly investigated and dealt with. That is a proud tradition of the British forces, and one that this Parliament upholds.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday:
	Any wrongdoing that ever occurs comes . . . from a very small minoritytotally unrepresentative of the broad mass of the British armed forces.[Official Report, 16 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 965.]
	I believe that all of us in the Chamber would endorse that.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Minister give way?

Don Touhig: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me but I have very little time. Under normal circumstances, I would give way to him, but those hon. Members who have served in the armed forces know the truth of what I am saying.
	Some accusations made by Opposition Members are perhaps designed more to inflame the leader writers than to inform any debate. The MOD gives tremendous support and help to all our people involved in the legal process. The Bloody Sunday inquiry and the Stevens investigationto which I referred during Defence questions on Mondayprove that we give that support. We will continue to give it.

Andrew Robathan: Will the Minister briefly respond to my question about the report in The Daily Telegraph on Monday?

Don Touhig: I am making a number of points, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that I shall come to that in my own time.
	It is time to set the record straight on current and recent prosecutions. Through ignorance or malice, or because certain of them seem to get things wrong, Opposition Members are damaging the morale of our armed forces by the way that they treat this issue.
	I am mindful of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). His attack on the Chief of the General Staff is a disgrace and a shame he will bear for a long time. I respect the hon. Gentleman as a former serving soldier and he knows that it is the convention in this country that serving officers do not engage in politics. I urge him now to help save his reputation and withdraw the slur on the good name of General Sir Mike Jackson. No less offensive were the allegations of political interference, which were as incoherent as they were intemperate. Contrary to the allegations that have been made, there is absolutely no political involvement in decisions of the independent Army prosecution authority.
	Sometimes I wonder exactly what the Opposition want. Are they saying that there should be political interference and that Ministers should intervene to stop prosecutions? Alternatively, are they saying that British troops should be above the law? I am sure that they are not doing so, but that is the impression that they seem to give.

Michael Ancram: It is important that we get this straight. Is the Minister saying that the Attorney-General on no occasion has any say on whether a prosecution should take place?

Don Touhig: As I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the responsibility of the Attorney-General comes into play after the Army prosecution authority believes that there is a matter to be prosecuted. That is how it happens and how it has been happening. We need a robust system of military justice through which allegations are investigated and, if appropriate, wrongdoers brought to court. That is what the Government want.
	Let me respond to the comments made by hon. Members. First, I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). We wish him well in his retirement. He has made a considerable contribution as a Member of the House, an Opposition spokesman and a Minister. I endorse warmly the comments that have been made on both sides of House at his last appearance at the Dispatch Box.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman alleged that the Government were responsible for cutting the defence budget. When his party was in power, defence spending[Hon. Members: Come on.] It is funny how Conservative Members do not want to hear these things. The Conservative Government cut defence spending by 15 per cent., and that was after the cold war. This Government are increasing defence spending by 7.5 per cent.that is the difference.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to complain about regiments and various cuts to forces. Let us not forget that the Conservative Government merged several regiments. They also reduced numbers in the Navy. The number of submarines fell from 18 to 10 and the number of frigates from 22 to 19. The number of Navy personnel was cut from 58,000 to 45,000. During the Tory Government of 1992 to 1997, the number of RAF squadrons fell from 55 to 47, which was a reduction of 15 per cent. The Conservatives have nothing to teach anyone about how to handle the armed forces.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised the Government's procurement record, but in 1997the year that the Conservatives left officethe National Audit Office found that the top 25 defence procurement projects in which the Conservative Government were involved were 3 billion over the original costs and would be delivered three years late. That was the Conservatives' record in government.
	I was especially worried that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the armed forces were under a legal siege. That is rubbish. There have been 80,000 troop deployments in Iraq since we have beenthere, but in that time, there have been 184 investigations, which includes investigations of road traffic incidents. Of those investigations, one is ongoing, three have been dealt with by a commanding officer, five have been passed to the Army prosecuting authority, five are due for trial and 164 are closed. Five trials have been held and one case is now with the chain of command. There is no siege on our forces as far as the legal system is concerned.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said that he believed that there should be an open debate on defence. He is right, but we have five defence debates a yearthis is one of themso we have a fairly open debate on defence.
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) made several points about nuclear policy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his views on that clear during Defence questions this week, so I have nothing to add to what he said.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the publication of the tri-service Bill. As I said, we hope to publish it at the end of the month and hold the Second Reading debate at the end of December. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the Blake report earlier, so I do not think that I can add anything else to that.
	I will take note of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised about Qinetiq. I will go through them thoroughly and, if necessary, write to him. I will place a copy of any correspondence in the Library.
	I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) for his hard work on behalf of his constituents. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has been trying to intervene for some timehe must forgive me but I cannot give way at this timeand I know that he shares my hon. Friend's concerns about the proposed job losses at Donnington. All is not dark there and I hope that both Members will take part in the meetings with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I cannot answer the question about the rail freight depot but to assist my hon. Friend I will ensure that it is passed on to my appropriate ministerial colleague.
	The Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), has an important role. His Committee scrutinises on our behalf what we do day-to-day in the Ministry of Defence. I pay tribute to him and his Committee for their hard work. He mentioned a debate about Trident. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reads Hansard tomorrow he will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and if there is a wide-ranging debate I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will welcome it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the issue of nuclear policy. I think I covered that point in my earlier remarks.
	The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) expressed concern about TA recruitment. I certainly do not dismiss the points she raised. Of course, we are engaged in a battle in recruiting people to our forces. That is a fact and we do not deny it. However, she might like to hear some remarks made by soldiers themselves, and I shall read out a couple of them. The first is:
	I do not believe that anyone joins either the reserve or the regular forces without some hope of seeing operations at some time during their service.
	The second is:
	One ought not to be in the Territorial Army if one does not accept or even welcome the chance of being called up.[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 24 March 2005, Vol. 419, c. 2512.]
	Those statements were made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
	I know of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) about DARA St. Athan. He has been campaigning about that for several years. As he knows, consultations are under way and I have no doubt that he will take part. I am encouraged by a south Wales newspaper headline, quoting my hon. Friend who said:
	It's not all doom and gloom over St. Athan.
	It is not, and I have no doubt that he will continue to ensure that he represents the interests of his colleagues and constituents in the forthcoming discussions.
	I did not agree with many of the things that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, but his contribution was thoughtful and lucid. Such contributions are important in defence debates. It was a good House of Commons speech, which considered the whole ambit of defence. I thank him for the main thrust of his remarks, although I disagreed with some of his conclusions. It was an excellent contribution to our debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) made a similar contribution and I certainly welcome his comments.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) mentioned the tri-service Bill. Perhaps he will serve on the Committee; if so, he will bring much wisdom and knowledge to our deliberations when we deal with the Bill, which already has several hundred clausesand we have not finished yet.
	I shall look into the points raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) about accommodation and education. If necessary, I shall write to him.
	The hon. Member for The Wrekin expressed concern about Donnington. I hope that he will be able to take part in the discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. That would certainly be helpful. He accused us of adopting privatisation, but the James review stated that, if the Conservatives had won the last election, they would have sold or privatised the Warship Support Agency, ABRO, DARA, the Met Office and the UK Hydrographic Office.

Mark Pritchard: rose

Don Touhig: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me, but I will not give way. I assume that he stood on the basis of that manifesto, so perhaps he could explain it to his constituents. We are doing something about the situation.
	I have a lot of affection for the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), but he peddled the same old Tory myth about attempts to cause grief among our services through a swathe of prosecutions. He referred to possible Northern Ireland legislation. We touched on that during questions this week, but he should know that the decision to review the 2,000 cases was taken not by the Government but by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It was their decision, not ours. He also expressed concern about terrorism. I do not doubt that his concern is genuine; it is only a pity that he was not in the right Lobby when we were voting on the 90-day provision last week.
	The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) made a number of points about recruitment that I think I have answered. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) made an important contribution. He talked about recruitment and I have already touched on that. He also talked about the Bowman project, which we had to sort out because the previous Government had left it in a terrible mess.
	I do not think that there is much more that I can say to the hon. Member for Blaby, as I have already said most of it. Time is running out, but I would certainly come back to him if there were more time.
	The Ministry of Defence is determined to provide modern support for our forces. We value our people and we will do whatever is in our power to demonstrate that. The men and women of the armed forces of the British Isles are the finest in the world, and I am sure that the whole House can at least agree on that and join me in congratulating and supporting them.
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

MICHAEL SHIELDS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Louise Ellman: I thank Mr. Speaker for selecting the case of my constituent, Michael Shields, for debate today. I bring Michael Shields's situation to the attention of the House because I am convinced that there is a grave danger that a gross injustice has taken place and that an innocent 19-year-old young man is languishing in a Bulgarian jail, serving a 15-year sentence for a crime that he did not commit and to which another man has confessed.
	The solution lies in the Bulgarian judicial system, but there is a vital role for our Government to play. Michael Shields, with others, travelled to the Crystal hotel in the Golden Sands resort of Varna, Bulgaria on 23 May 2005. From there, he moved to Istanbul to watch Liverpool beat AC Milan in the European championship final on 25 May. He then returned to Varna. On 30 May, at approximately 5.30 am, in the vicinity of the Big Ben fast food caf, barman Martin Georgiev was seriously assaulted. He was punched to the ground and then kicked. His assailant proceeded to drop a large rock-like stone on to his head. Only immediate surgery saved Martin Georgiev's life.
	Michael Shields was taken from his hotel room, where he was sleeping. After an investigation, he was later arrested and charged with attempted murder. He received a 15-year sentence in the Varna court on 26 July 2005, and was ordered to pay compensation of 200,000 Bulgarian leva in addition. Two others received non-custodial sentences. Michael has always been adamant that he was asleep in his hotel room at the time the attack took place, and produced witnesses to testify to that fact.
	On 28 July, Graham Sankey, who had been questioned but then released by the Bulgarian police before he returned to Liverpool, confessed to the crime. In a statement issued through his solicitor he stated:
	an innocent man has received blame for what I did.
	To this day, Graham Sankey has not been questioned about his confession. The case is under Bulgarian jurisdiction and only the Bulgarians can initiate such a process.
	I have discussed the matter with Merseyside police, who are willing to investigate. They can do so, however, only at the request of the Bulgarian authorities. No such request has been made. Michael's appeal, which was heard on 14 October, confirmed both the guilty verdict and the 15-year sentence. Michael's legal team is now considering an appeal to the Sofia court. If that does not succeed, Michael's case may be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which could order a retrial.
	Today, I ask our Ministers to urge the Bulgarian authorities to order an inquiry or a retrial into this highly disturbing case, and I do so for three major reasons: first because of serious concerns about the initial trial, including the pre-trial phase; secondly, because of the failure to question Graham Sankey following his confession to the crime; and, thirdly, because of the significant evidence submitted by a new witness. I should like to indicate the major areas of concern in those three spheres, although I stress that this is not an exhaustive list.
	First, I refer to the trial and pre-trial phase. Stephen Jacobi, the eminent international human rights lawyer who is director of Fair Trials Abroad, witnessed part of the initial trial. He reports serious shortcomings, stating that the way in which identification was authenticated was quite appalling. In the absence of forensic evidencea major deficiency in itselfthis is greatly disturbing. Guilt was determined solely on the basis of witness identification. Witnesses were able to resile from their police statements that they could not remember details of the defendants' faces. Dock identification was permitted, as though it was of real evidential worth, a practice that Stephen Jacobi reports was abandoned in the United Kingdom 50 years ago.
	Evidence on how the blow to Martin Georgiev was struck was divided. All those in the barclose colleagues of the victimadmitted that they did not see the beginning of the action, but stated that the stone was clutched to the assailant's chest and dropped from there. Those who saw the whole of the attack from outside could identify Michael Shields only from seeing him in the dock, and they said that the stone was brought down from above the assailant's head.
	The court considered a highly judgmental document from the prison governor, who gave a prejudicial interpretation of Michael's motives in wishing to have his hair cut. The defence could not cross-examine the governor on that. Even before the trial began, prejudiced pre-trial publicity and the flawed identity parade gave cause for concern.
	The second reason I seek an inquiry or a retrial is the bizarre situation of Graham Sankey. The Bulgarians have not questioned Graham Sankey since his confession to the crime, and neither have they asked the British police to do so, although it is within their remit to make that request. This raises major questions. The Bulgarian Ministry of Justice issued a summons for Graham Sankey and four others to attend court before the confession was made. So before the confession was made the Bulgarians did want Graham Sankey to come to court for questioning. After the confession was made, they did not want to talk to him, nor did they want anyone else to do so.
	The request that the Bulgarian authorities made for Graham Sankey to attend court before he made any confession was received by the Home Office on 11 July, but was not served by the UK central authority because insufficient time was given before the court hearing on 21 and 22 July. The normal period of notice required is six weeks. Yet, inconsistently, the Bulgarian courts rejected Michael Shield's defence request for an adjournment of the appeal hearing in October so that Graham Sankey could be questioned after he had made his confession. I understand that that refusal, and indeed inconsistency, could be material to a successful hearing in the European Court of Human Rights.
	The third reason for an inquiry or retrial is because a new witness, Mr. A, has recently come forward and submitted a notarised and legalised statement. He was an eye witness to the incident. He does not know either Michael Shields or Graham Sankey. He reports that the man who dropped the stone on Martin Georgiev's head was short and dark. He is certain that it was not the fair-haired Michael Shields.
	When Mr. A returned to the Big Ben bar the morning after the incident, he spoke to a bar worker who had witnessed the attack. The bar worker referred to the assailant as
	a fat lad with black hair,
	and stated that this could be corroborated by around 10 people. Mr. A assumed that those witnesses would point out that Michael Shields, who is fair, was the wrong man. That is why he did not come forward as a witness at that time.
	However, those in the bar who witnessed who carried out this offence did not speak out. At the time of the attack, they saw a dark-haired man commit the offence. In court, they identified the fair-haired Michael Shields. Was this indeed a change of testimony, or was it about selecting witnesses to bolster the prosecution's case? When Mr. A later read about Graham Sankey's confession, he assumed that it would be accepted. That did not happen, which is why he has now come forward. Mr. A is ready to travel to Bulgaria to testify.
	At this stage, neither Graham Sankey nor the new witness has been questioned about their statements. That means that no Bulgarian court has considered all the available evidence.
	This is a critical time for Bulgaria. On 25 October, the European Commission published its enhanced monitoring assessment on whether Bulgaria should be permitted to join the European Union as planned in January 2007. I note that two of the five areas of concern identified by the Commission are justice and home affairs, with specific reference to the pre-trial phase. That is highly relevant to Michael Shields's situation for the reasons that I have set out.
	I ask the Government to object to Bulgaria's accession to the European Union. There are good grounds for doing so. The deep disquiet over the way Michael Shields's trial has been conducted relates to the very areas of concern identified by the Commission.
	This case concerns the life of a young man and that of his devastated family. It is about a potential gross injustice. The Shields family are strong and united. They have firm support in Liverpool, in the country and in Europe, where Arlene McCarthy, the Member of the European Parliament for the North West, is campaigning on Michael's behalf. The Shields family's campaign will continue until justice is done and I shall stand with them. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for meeting the Shields family when I brought them to the Foreign Office in September.

Peter Kilfoyle: I have listened carefully, because Graham Sankey is my constituent. While I am equivocal about the case concerning Sankey, if only because of the inadequacy of the personality, I am overwhelmed by the case that my hon. Friend has described, which I have some knowledge of, and which demands a fair retrial for Michael Shields. Will she accept my humble support in her endeavours to ensure that he gets that retrial?

Louise Ellman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I accept his support, because the case that I am making is indeed for a retrial.
	I thank the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the assistance that they and their staff have given following the meeting in the Foreign Office and, indeed, before that. It has taken many forms and it is much appreciated, but more needs to be done as we address the complexities of a potential miscarriage of justice involving a British citizen imprisoned under another jurisdiction. I recognise that Ministers cannot interfere in the Bulgarian judicial process, but I ask them to exert their influence on the Bulgarian authorities and to urge them to conduct an inquiry, or to order a retrial, into what happened to Michael Shields. That influence is considerable and I have suggested how it might be exerted. It is a matter of justice.

Douglas Alexander: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on securing a debate on the case of Michael Shields, who, as she has reminded us, has been detained in Bulgaria since May. I welcome the opportunity to set out our position clearly in relation to that case. I pay tribute to the tireless efforts that she has made and continues to make on behalf of Michael and the Shields family.
	Before concentrating on the specifics of the case, it is worth noting the close ties that the United Kingdom has with Bulgaria, which is soon to be a fellow member of the European Union. Every year, 200,000 British visitors visit Bulgaria, enjoying the Black sea coastal resorts and the country's rich cultural heritage. The majority of those visits are trouble free for British visitors and it is important to recognise that the arrest of British nationals remains, I am thankful to say, a rare occurrence. The number of visitors is also set to rise with the increasing popularity of package holidays to the Bulgarian coastal resorts in summer and to the ski resorts in winter.
	My hon. Friend spoke about the background of Mr. Shields's case and the events surrounding the serious injury sustained by Martin Georgiev, who will always bear the scars from this incident. I sympathise with the Shields family and will ensure that we continue to do all that we properly can to assist them.
	Our consular staff were informed on 30 May of the arrest of Michael Shields and three other British nationals, Graham Sankey, Bradley Thompson and Anthony Wilson, following a stone-throwing incident in the Golden Sands resort in Varna, Bulgaria, in which a Bulgarian national was seriously injured. Our consular staff visited the detainees at the arrest ward of the investigation centre in Varna on 31 May. None of the detainees complained about their treatment by the Bulgarian authorities. If they had done so, we would have raised those concerns immediately with the local authorities. Since their arrest, our staff have been present at key subsequent court appearances.
	As my hon. Friend is aware, the result of Mr. Shields's appeal was released on 9 November. The judges ruled that Mr. Shields's conviction and sentence for attempted murder and hooliganism should stand, but agreed to a reduction of the civil claim amount to 120,000 leva. I understand how disappointing this must be for Mr. Shields and his family. There remains the possibility of appeal to the Cassation Court and I understand that Mr. Shields, his family and his legal team are discussing appealing to that court. My hon. Friend will understandindeed, she confirmed as much this eveningthat Ministers cannot interfere in the legal process of another sovereign country.
	My hon. Friend asked what the Foreign Office can do to persuade the Bulgarian authorities to interview Mr. Sankey and to examine the evidence of a new witness. I understand that, prior to his appeal, Mr. Shields's legal team lodged a separate application to the court that requested that the court call Graham Sankey as a witness. The Appeal Court judge dismissed that request, stating that Mr. Sankey had already been removed from the list of witnesses, with the agreement of the defence. Mr. Sankey's confession was raised at the original trial, but was considered insufficient to create doubts with the court about Mr. Shields's guilt. I understand that the court questioned the confession's relevance and credibility. As my hon. Friend is aware, we are unable to interfere in the judicial processes of other countries, just as other countries are unable to interfere in our judicial processes. We have been advised by the Bulgarian authorities that new evidence will be examined only if the Cassation Court rules that the case should be returned to the Court of First Instance. That is a matter for Mr. Shields's legal team to pursue.
	While we cannot interfere in the legal process, I assure my hon. Friend that we remain committed to doing all that we properly can to ensure for Mr Shields's welfare. Consular staff have assisted the Shields family with their visits on numerous occasions. We have maintained close contact with the family whenever they have been in Bulgaria and our staff have provided them with extensive consular support.
	The Shields family have raised concerns over Michael's health and welfare. Our consul visited Mr. Shields on 10 November to discuss those concerns, and Mr. Shields said that he did not require any medical assistance. We will, of course, continue to monitor Mr. Shields's welfare, raising his concerns with the relevant authorities where necessary.
	As I hope my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I made clear at our meeting with my hon. Friend and the Shields family on 13 September, we take Mr. Shields's case very seriously and we are committed to providing him with all appropriate consular assistance. Since that meeting, my right hon. Friend and I have both raised Mr. Shields's case with, respectively, the Bulgarian Foreign Minister and the Europe Minister.
	I appreciate that this is a difficult and distressing time for the Shields family. In only a few days time, we will have a further opportunity to discuss the accession to the European Union of Romania and Bulgaria, and that will no doubt afford a further opportunity for discussion of this matter. However, my hon. Friend should be assured that we will continue to take a close interest in Mr. Shields and will continue to do all that we properly can to assist the Shields family at this difficult and distressing time. I am aware that we have already had one useful and constructive meeting on the subject in the Foreign Office and, in the light of the ongoing discussions my hon. Friend and I have had, I would be willing to consider a further meeting if that would be of assistance to her, as the elected representative, or to the Shields family, given what a difficult and distressing time this must be for them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Six o'clock.